Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Kim Leadbeater Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 29th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

I beg to move, that the Bill be now read a Second time.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you to everyone who is attending this hugely significant debate. It is a privilege to open the debate on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, a piece of legislation that would give dying people, under stringent criteria, choice, autonomy and dignity at the end of their lives. I welcome the debate on this hugely important issue.

Let me say to colleagues across the House, particularly new colleagues, that I know this is not easy—it certainly has not been easy for me—but if any of us wanted an easy life, I am afraid we are in the wrong place. It is our job to address complex issues and make difficult decisions. I know that for many people this is a very difficult decision, but our job is also to address the issues that matter to people. After nearly a decade since the subject was debated on the Floor of the House, many would say that the debate is long overdue.

For my part, I have tried incredibly hard to ensure that the tone of the debate has been—and continues to be—robust, of course, but most importantly respectful and compassionate. I am pleased that, for the most part, that has been the case. I can be confident that that same tone of respect and compassion will be adopted by colleagues today, whatever views they hold. That is particularly important as we have people in the Public Gallery who have a strong personal interest in this issue. They hold a range of views. Some of them have lost loved ones in difficult and traumatic circumstances, and others are themselves terminally ill.

I want to pay a huge and heartfelt tribute to those families and to every single person who has contacted me about this issue, and in many cases shared their own very personal stories of loss and death. I know from my own personal experience of grief that telling your story over and over again takes energy, courage and strength. I am incredibly grateful to them all. It is their voices and their stories that have inspired me.

Such stories are difficult to hear, but it is vital that they are heard as they are at the heart of the debate. They show that the law is failing people. Where that is the case, we have a duty to do what is right to fix it. Those here today or watching at home are dealing with the real consequences of the failings of the current system. I will start by recounting just a few of their stories.

Warwick was married to his wife Ann for nearly 40 years. She had terminal peritoneal cancer, which meant that she could not breathe properly. She spent four days gasping and choking, remaining awake throughout despite being given the maximum dose of sedatives. She eventually died of suffocation. She had begged Warwick to end her life, but as he stood over her with a pillow he could not do what she asked as he did not want that to be her final memory of him. Ann had excellent palliative care, but it simply could not ease her suffering.

Tim fell in love at first sight when he met his wife Louise—he proposed after just three days. But Louise got cancer, twice, and at the end, the morphine simply could not control her pain. In desperation, she managed to smash a small glass bottle and tried to take her own life, not realising that her toddler daughter had got into bed with her. Tim found her. He says,

“You get to a point where you stop praying for a miracle and start praying for mercy.”

Former police officer James waved is mum off as she embarked on her final trip, to Dignitas. She had terminal vasculitis. James desperately wanted to accompany his mum and hold her hand during her final moments, but he knew, because of his job as a police officer, that it was just not possible. Indeed, she insisted that he must not go with her, so she went alone—no one to hold her hand, and no proper goodbye or funeral. Those are just a few examples of the heartbreaking reality and human suffering that far too many people experience as a result of the status quo. the public know this.

I have always been keen to ensure that my politics stays rooted in the world beyond Westminster. It is clear that public opinion is very much in favour of a change in the law. Polling shows consistently that around 75% of people would like to see the legalisation of assisted dying for terminally ill, mentally competent adults. These findings are significant, but it may not be that surprising that most people believe, as I do, that we should all have the right to make the choices and decisions we want about our own bodies. Let us be clear: we are not talking about a choice between life or death; we are talking about giving dying people a choice of how to die.

Let us examine what that choice currently looks like. I do not have a legal background but I have always been driven by a strong sense of injustice. If I see a problem, I will do everything I can to try to solve it. Indeed, in this job, we all do that every week and every day, whether here in Parliament or in our constituencies. When four former directors of public prosecutions, including the Prime Minister, two former presidents of the Supreme Court and many lawyers all agree that the law needs to change, surely we have a duty to do something about it.

Intentionally helping another person to end their life is currently illegal under the Suicide Act 1961, and carries a maximum prison sentence of 14 years. This includes family and friends helping someone who is terminally ill to die, both in the UK and overseas. Existing guidance does not stop people from being investigated by the police, adding fear, guilt and further trauma to grieving families. The law is not clear, and it does not protect individuals, families or medical professionals. That drives people to very desperate measures.

What about coercion? Senior King’s Counsel have said:

“There is currently no established system for identifying abuse or coercion in advance of a person’s death or for helping vulnerable people to make end of life decisions.”

[Kevin McKenna (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab)]

I have been a nurse for more than a quarter of a century, and in that time I have worked mostly in intensive care as a specialist. I have worked with compassionate and skilled, well-trained clinicians who have been taught to spot coercion—it is fundamental to our practice. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is wrong to suggest that clinicians cannot spot coercion in these cases?

[Kim Leadbeater]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. I thank him for it, and for his years of service as a nurse. I have spoken to many medical professionals about this issue, and they say that this is part of their job. They are very skilled and they work closely with patients, particularly dying patients, to assess their needs and to have those difficult and delicate conversations. As the KCs said, at the moment we check for coercion in cases where people have taken their own lives—when someone is dead. The Bill would make coercion a criminal offence with a sentence of up to 14 years.

Surely, by putting a legal framework around this difficult situation, we will provide an extra level of safeguarding. One psychotherapist, who is terminally ill herself, said to me recently that coercion happens when things are hidden away. The Bill would bring things out into the open. Surely, that must be safer for everyone. Let us look at what the absence of a robust legal framework looks like.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving the House the time to debate the Bill this morning. She references coercion, and I understand her point about the two medics, but medics will not be able to see or hear everything at all times. People will not be put beyond challenge, because subsequent to the death, if a relative claims coercion of another relative, investigation will remain. I am entirely unclear how, without peradventure, two clinicians can claim that there had been no coercion at any point.

[Kim Leadbeater]

The hon. Gentleman has made the point for me: within a robust system, we will check for coercion, but we do not have any of that now. At the moment, the person will be definitely be dead. We have to look at the status quo. Putting in layers of safeguarding and checking for coercion must be better than the system that we have now.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

Colleagues are right to raise questions around coercion. I hosted a phone-in on LBC where people rang in and said, “I feel like I have to end my life because I recognise how difficult it is for my family to see me suffering.” The limit in the Bill, however, is that someone must have only six months to live according to two doctors and a judge, which I genuinely believe massively reduces the risk of coercion. Are we really saying that people are so desperate to bump off their families that if they were told that they had six months to live, they would escalate the process and do it sooner?

[Kim Leadbeater]

The hon. Lady makes an excellent point—she is absolutely right. The very strict criteria in the Bill add extra layers of safeguarding, which, again, we just do not have at the moment.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Ind)]

I have the deepest respect for my hon. Friend, but one thing that concerns me is societal or systemic coercion. At the moment, elderly people in our society pay thousands of pounds a month to be in a care home. What reassurances can my hon. Friend give that an elderly person in a care home who has been given six months to live would not think to themselves, “I’m a burden. I have been given six months to live. If I end my life now, I can save my family between £25,000 and £55,000”? That really concerns me.

[Kim Leadbeater]

As I have said, at the moment, we have no idea whether that person would take action because we are not having those conversations. By getting two medical professionals and a High Court judge involved, we would be putting this out in the open. Evidence from other jurisdictions shows clearly that coercion tends to happen the other way; what tends to happen is that families try to prevent the person from making the choice of an assisted death.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Kim Leadbeater]

I will take one more intervention.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Is it not the case that the conversations that patients will have with doctors will bring out whether they have been coerced or are suffering intolerably? The criteria are about suffering, not whether somebody worries that they are a burden.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I agree absolutely. Those conversations, which are not taking place at the moment, are very important. I will make some progress.

There has rightly been a lot of discussion about palliative care in recent weeks, and I am convinced that a significant amount of that discussion would not have taken place without the introduction of the Bill. It is a long overdue conversation, and I am very pleased to see it happening.

I have met with the Association for Palliative Medicine, Hospice UK, Sue Ryder and Marie Curie, and last week I was delighted to attend the inaugural meeting of the all-party parliamentary group for hospices. I also attended the fantastic Kirkwood hospice, which serves my constituency of Spen Valley. I pay tribute to the dedicated staff and volunteers across the country in the palliative care sector, who do some of the most vital work in society. We must do more to support them, and I look forward to working with the Government and colleagues across the House in that important endeavour. That is why I have included in the Bill a requirement for the Secretary of State to report to the House on the availability, quality and distribution of palliative care.

Of course, assisted dying is not a substitute for palliative care—it is not an either/or. We have some of the best palliative care in the world in this country, and, when it can meet the needs of terminally ill people, it is second to none. However, when it cannot, surely the choice of an assisted death should be one component of a holistic approach to end of life care.

The comprehensive report by the Health and Social Care Committee, published earlier this year, found no indications of palliative care deteriorating in quality or provision in places where assisted dying had been introduced.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Ever mindful of what the hon. Lady has said about the criteria, I remind her that Belgium started off with a simple project like the one she refers to but it deteriorated and expanded to include sufferers of dementia and under-18s—children. What guarantees do we have that this legislation will not end up with a situation like that in Belgium, in which case anything goes? Is that what the hon. Lady wants? I do not want that. Does she?

[Kim Leadbeater]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, but let us be very, very clear. Huge amounts of research has been done by the Health and Social Care Committee, and indeed by myself and others. The model being proposed here is nothing like what happens in Belgium. It is nothing like what happens in Canada. There are strict, stringent criteria, and if the House chooses to pass the Bill, those criteria cannot be changed.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way and congratulate her on the measured way in which she has conducted this debate over the last few weeks. Whatever side of the House and whatever side of the debate, I would like to recognise that—it is not always the case. But is it not the case that the Bill crosses a new and irreversible medical red line for doctors and nurses? Is it not the case that in other Bills we have seen in this House over the years, the safeguards invariably become obsolete over time, and so the safeguards in this Bill, however well meant, should be seen as temporary safeguards and not immutable safeguards?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

Absolutely not. I respectfully disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. In countries where a Bill of this nature has been implemented, the safeguards have been in place and the boundaries have never changed. I will come on to talk about that.

[Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)]

rose—

[Kim Leadbeater]

I will take one more intervention and then I must make some progress.

[Sir Oliver Dowden]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. I have a great deal of sympathy for the arguments she is making. However, we have seen, time and again, excessive judicial activism taking the words in this House and expanding their meaning into places we had not foreseen. What reassurances can she give that the words in her Bill will be respected by the judiciary and that we will not find ourselves in a decade’s time in a totally different place that this House did not intend?

[Kim Leadbeater]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The courts have repeatedly put this issue back to Parliament. This is not their domain. This is the legislation. There are strict criteria.

Coming back to palliative care, in situations where pain simply cannot be managed, the result is deaths that are so horrific that the person themselves can spend hours, and in some cases days, in unimaginable pain as they die. I want to bring the debate back to the issue that we are trying to solve. For their loved ones, no matter how many joyful and happy memories they have, they also have the trauma that comes from watching someone you love die in unbearable agony and fear. That memory stays with them forever.

Rebecca’s mum Fiona developed metastatic brain cancer at the age of 69. She had very good palliative care, but her pain could not be managed, and she died begging and screaming for assistance to end her suffering. Her family and the medical team treating her cried beside her bedside as it took her 10 days to die.

Lucy’s husband Tom was 47, a music teacher with a young son. He had bile duct cancer which obstructed his bowel, resulting in an agonising death. Tom vomited faecal matter for five hours before he ultimately inhaled the faeces and died. He was vomiting so violently that he could not be sedated and was conscious throughout. Lucy pleaded with the doctors to help. The doctor treating him said there was nothing he could do. His family say that the look of horror on his face as he died will never leave them. Lucy now has post-traumatic stress disorder, which is quite common for families who lose loved ones in such harrowing circumstances.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for the powerful and moving stories she is telling. A constituent of mine watched her mum suffer from pancreatic cancer. Unable to keep any food down, she basically starved to death. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is no way to see a loved one die? Does she also agree that we did not come into this place to shy away from difficult choices, but to listen to our constituents and make better laws for everyone?

[Kim Leadbeater]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and I am so sorry to hear that story from her constituency. We all have stories from all our constituencies, and she is absolutely right that we are here to make difficult decisions. On her example there, I have been astonished by the number of people who have been in touch with me to tell me about the terminally ill loved ones who have starved themselves to death out of desperation—something that takes far longer than we may imagine and is just horrific for everyone involved. That is currently legal, and doctors are required to assist the patient through this agonising process. How can we allow that, but not a compassionate and humane assisted death?

[Blair McDougall (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

I join the right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) in commending my hon. Friend for the way she has made sure that this binary debate has not been a polarising one. I started the debate where she is now, but I have moved to opposing the Bill by the stories I have heard of disabled people who have had “do not resuscitate” put on their medical records without their permission, or who have been stopped by strangers in the street and been told, “You would be better off dead.” I know she will say that we are voting on the specifics of her Bill, but we are also voting on a principle. Does she agree that there should be a precautionary approach, and does she honestly believe the legislative process gives us the time to be sure that we are making the right decision?

[Kim Leadbeater]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and I will come on to some of those points later in my speech. Let us be very clear: the title of the Bill refers to terminally ill adults, not disabled people or elderly people, as another hon. Member referred to. The criteria are very clear.

I come back to the status quo, which is the problem we are trying to address. If people want to avoid the trauma of some of the harrowing circumstances I have described, they can have an assisted death—just not in this country. If they have £10,000 or £15,000, they can make the trip to Switzerland or elsewhere but, because of the current legal position, it is often a deeply distressing and very lonely experience, shrouded in secrecy, with people feeling like criminals as the fear of prosecution hangs over them.

Ilana’s husband Crispin had late-stage motor neurone disease. He was paralysed, and Ilana is a wheelchair user, but at his request she took him on a traumatic and difficult journey to Switzerland. She describes the intense stress and anxiety she felt due to the total secrecy of their plan—and we can only imagine what the journey home was like, on her own, with an empty seat beside her.

There are also those terminally ill people who take matters into their own hands. Gareth’s father Norman served in the Welsh Guards. He was a strong man, but his final five years were full of pain and discomfort. He had prostate cancer, which he lived with for 15 years. He was given good initial hormone therapy and chemo, but the cancer spread everywhere and the pain could not be eased. One day, when it all became too much, he went into his garden with the gun he owned and shot himself. Gareth’s sister rushed to his house and found him. Gareth said his father just wanted the pain to stop.

Then there is Peter, from Mirfield in my own constituency, who stopped me in a car park a couple of weeks ago to tell me the harrowing story of his beloved wife, who was diagnosed with metastatic cancer aged 52. The treatment was ineffective and her symptoms were unbearable. She took an overdose of her medication, and Peter found her and took her to hospital. She recovered and he brought her home, but the following day she made another attempt to take her own life, in a way that is too awful to describe. Peter found her dead, and he spent the next eight hours being questioned by the police.

It is estimated that more than 600 terminally ill people take their own lives every year. Often patients will store up medication. Josh, a 33-year-old from Huddersfield went to coach his local kids’ rugby team one Saturday and came back to tell his mum all about it. He found her dead. Lisa, who was terminally ill, had stored up her medication and taken her own life.

Our former colleague Paul Blomfield, the previous MP for Sheffield Central, has campaigned tirelessly on this issue since his dad Harry took his own life in 2014, alone in his garage, after being diagnosed with inoperable lung cancer. Language matters: Harry was not suicidal; he loved life, but he had watched too many of his friends have lingering, degrading deaths and he did not want that for himself. But, like the others, he could not tell Paul and his family of his plan, as they would have been complicit and could have faced prosecution. How many precious days and weeks did Harry miss out on as a result of having to take action while he was still physically able to do so? Hearing these stories is not easy, but it is important.

[Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)]

What I have been struck by in recent weeks as I have listened to Members from across the House is the clear agreement that the current situation is neither sustainable nor dignified. Almost everyone in this House agrees that the status quo is unacceptable in terms of dignity, palliative care and end of life. Given that, does my hon. Friend agree that today’s debate is about how we depart from the unacceptable situation that we currently face? Is today’s vote not the first stage of an important discussion about we improve the end of life for hundreds and hundreds of people across this country?

[Kim Leadbeater]

I wholeheartedly agree. I am setting out what we are dealing with now. This cannot be right, and surely we have a duty to do something about it.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kim Leadbeater]

I am going to make some progress, if that is okay.

Some of the most important voices in this debate are, of course, those of people currently living with a terminal illness. Having a terminal diagnosis is perhaps one of those situations where it is very hard, if not impossible, to know how we would feel. I have met many terminally ill people over recent weeks and every one of them is in my thoughts today.

Sophie, who is here today, was diagnosed with stage 4 secondary breast cancer, which has spread to her lungs, liver and pelvis. She is allergic to opioids, so she knows that her pain is very unlikely to be able to be managed. She has a 17-year-old daughter. All she asks is to have the choice to say goodbye to her daughter at a time of her choosing, in circumstances that she can have some control over, and for her daughter to be able to remember her as the vibrant, positive woman she is.

Nathaniel, who also joins us today, has stage 4 incurable bowel cancer, which is now in his liver and brain. Like many of us, Nat says that he does not know whether he would choose an assisted death or not, but he simply cannot understand why anyone would want to deny him the choice. He says:

“I wish to live as fully as I can and for as long as possible. But when the time comes”,

Nat also wants

“the right to die with dignity and compassion”.

Another very emotional lady came up to me at a recent interfaith event. She and her husband thanked me for putting the Bill forward. She said, “Kim, I am a proud Christian and I am guided by my faith. But I also have terminal cancer and I want the right to choose a compassionate death.”

There has been much discussion about the views of people who hold religious beliefs. I fully respect those beliefs and do not intend to say much more about this, other than that I know there are a range of views within faith communities. Indeed, some of the most powerful conversations that I have had have been with people of faith, including in my own constituency. People of different religions have said that although they would not choose an assisted death for themselves or their family, who are they to stop someone else who may want to make that choice?

[Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Kim Leadbeater]

I will make some progress, if I may. I hope that I have set out the problem that clearly exists. Now allow me to set out how the Bill can address that problem and, most importantly, do so safely and effectively.

If the Bill were to become law, it would contain the most robust and strongest set of safeguards and protections in the world. Very strict eligibility criteria and multiple layers of checks and safeguards are embedded in the Bill, none of which, as we have seen, exist at the moment. I made a conscious decision to name it the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, rather than anything else. That title can never be changed and ensures that only adults who were dying would ever come within its scope. As such, the Bill is not about people choosing between life and death; it is about giving dying people with six months or less to live autonomy about how they die and the choice to shorten their deaths.

The Bill does not apply to people with mental health conditions. It does not apply to the elderly. It does not apply to people with chronic health conditions, and it does not apply to disabled people, unless, of course, they have a terminal illness, in which case they would and should be entitled to the same rights as anyone else.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

One group of people who are not often talked about are the learning disabled. Clause 9(3)(b) says that if an assessing doctor has any doubt as to the capacity of the person, they may refer them for a further psychiatric assessment. If the Bill is voted through today, will the hon. Member engage in a debate about whether that language should be strengthened from “may” to “must” and whether the training and experience required of the assessor should be strengthened as well?

[Kim Leadbeater]

The hon. Lady makes an excellent point and highlights a community who we must consider in light of the Bill. I would absolutely be open to that conversation in Committee; it is a very valid point.

There are different views within the disabled community. As Professor of Disability Research, Sir Tom Shakespeare says that it is unacceptable that people with disabilities continue to face social stigma and inequalities, but that it would be a mistake to conclude that we should oppose legalising assisted dying for terminally ill people until those wider problems are fixed. He says that it is paternalistic and wrong to imply that inequalities will be resolved by reducing choices, and that a clear, transparent legal framework for end-of-life choice is better for everyone. He is right. There is, of course, still work to do in the fight for equality for people with disabilities, but once again it is not an either/or. I will campaign alongside many others in this place for those rights, but I will also campaign for the rights of terminally ill people, because their rights are as important as anybody else’s rights.

[Barry Gardiner]

I have huge respect for the hon. Lady for the way that she has conducted this debate over the last few weeks. My concern is that she has focused today on the individual and the individual choice, but we are here to legislate for society as a whole. In legislating, what we are saying if we pass the Bill is that it is okay to take that choice—[Interruption]—and there will be some people who have six months of their life to go who will then feel, “Ought I to do this? Is this something that I now should do?” That brings into play a whole set of considerations—“Is it better for my family? Is it financially better for my family?”—in ways that, at the moment, are out of scope. Rather than simply focusing on the individual suffering, which we all recognise is acute, we must broaden the debate to the impact that the legislation will have on society as a whole.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I suggest that the Bill will give society a much better approach towards end of life. We are already hearing conversations about dying and death which I do not think we have heard enough in this country. We have to take a holistic view. Indeed, that is what happens in other countries and other jurisdictions. Having those deep and meaningful conversations about death and dying is really important. My hon. Friend’s comments bring me on nicely to the protections and safeguards in the Bill.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

A decade ago, I voted against a similar Bill, because I felt that perhaps it was not perfect and there were more things that I needed to know. My hon. Friend is right that we have not talked about death for the 10 years since or considered any legislation. The truth is that if we vote against her Bill today, it will be the end of the conversation once again for another decade.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. How many people will go through the situations I have described if it is another 10 years before we address this matter?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Kim Leadbeater]

I am not going to take any more interventions, I am afraid, because I am conscious that lots of hon. Members want to speak; I know Mr Speaker is conscious of that as well.

Under the Bill, any terminally ill person who wants to be considered for an assisted death would have to undertake a thorough and robust process involving two doctors and a High Court judge. No other jurisdiction in the world has those layers of safeguarding. The person requesting assistance must have mental capacity and a settled wish at every stage. That means they must repeatedly demonstrate that they understand the information relevant to their decision, the ability to retain that information, and to use or weigh that information as part of the process of making the decision. We know that capacity can fluctuate which is why it is assessed at every step of the process.

[Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)]

On that point, will my hon. Friend give way?

[Kim Leadbeater]

I am sorry but I am not going to take any interventions, as I need to make progress.

The court must speak to one of the doctors and can hear from anybody else they deem necessary. If there is any evidence of coercion, the court will not approve the request, and if evidence emerges subsequently, the court order could be revoked. It is also important to note that the person can change their mind at any time, with periods of reflection built in. Having consulted at the highest levels in the judiciary and the medical profession, I know that they can and will fulfil those safeguarding responsibilities and that they have the expertise to do so.

Let us be clear: as my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna) said earlier, this is not brand new territory for doctors. Doctors, working in partnership with other clinicians, are already required to manage complexity in end-of-life decision making. I followed the request of the British Medical Association that doctors should be under no obligation whatsoever to participate, but if they do participate, they will receive appropriate training and support. Doctors should be able to use their professional judgment when and if a conversation takes place, taking their cue from the patient, as they do for many other issues. I welcome that patient-centred approach. Many doctors feel the change in the law would safeguard clinicians and patients by making everything explicit.

When it comes to the detail of what assisted dying would look like, we have the benefit of drawing on the experience of 31 jurisdictions around the world. I could talk extensively about the international experience of assisted dying. The Health and Social Care Committee report did a brilliant job of that, and this Bill has looked at best practice as well as models which I and many others would not be comfortable with our having here in England and Wales.

Reflecting on their experience, clinicians in Australia say:

“through deep and meaningful conversations between doctors, patients and their loved ones we can dispel fear, reduce suffering, bring death and dying out of the shadows, and so allow patients and their families a better quality of life and quality of death”.

As one Australian Member of Parliament said:

“We have brought ‘behind-closed-doors’ practices into the open and given dying people meaningful, transparent choices. Crucially none of the fears that were put forward as reasons not to change the law have been realised. The status quo was broken and assisted dying works.”

Evidence from around the world shows that the option of having an assisted death actually lifts the fear that terminally ill people have, and that many never actually use it but are able to make the best of the time they have left due to the comfort and reassurance that it provides.

People talk about a slippery slope, but the Health and Social Care Committee found that not one jurisdiction that has passed laws on the basis of terminal illness has expanded its scope. [Interruption.] That is absolutely true. As the courts here and in Europe have repeatedly made clear, Parliament is sovereign. This Bill could not be made any broader through any judicial process.

Speaking of process, with reference to the Bill, having listened to what I know are genuine concerns of Members about ensuring that we get this legislation right, I commit to the House that if the Bill passes Second Reading today, which I sincerely hope it does, I am minded to move a motion that gives the Bill Committee the power to take oral and written evidence in order to ensure that a thorough approach continues to be taken. That is not normal procedure for a private Member’s Bill, but I think that that is the right thing to do. I also reassure colleagues that the Bill Committee will meet over a number of weeks, meaning that there is ample time for full consideration of the details of the Bill, including amendments. The Committee will be representative of the views and make-up of the House. Let me be clear: that will mean there will be representatives of different parties with a range of views on the Committee.

As the Leader of the House said at the Dispatch Box just yesterday, and has said several times, the Government will, of course, work with me to ensure that the Bill is workable and operable. That will quite rightly take time, and I have included in the Bill a commencement period of up to two years—this is not going to happen overnight. That timeframe can be explored in Committee, as it is more important to get this right than to do it quickly.

In conclusion, for the reasons I have set out, I am very clear that the law needs to change to give terminally ill people choice at the end of life and to protect their loved ones from fear of prosecution. There will be some of us here today who are lucky enough not to have personal experience of this issue, but sadly we know that any one of us could end up in this heartbreaking situation. We are all living longer, which is brilliant, and I have campaigned inside and outside Parliament for a greater focus on prevention and early intervention of illness and disease to keep us fit and healthy for as long as possible, but any one of us or our loved ones could be unfortunate or unlucky enough to receive a terminal diagnosis. I struggle to see how it is fair or just to deny anyone the autonomy, dignity and personal choice of taking control of their final weeks. And the right to choose does not take away the right not to choose. Giving the choice of an assisted death to those who want it would of course not stop anyone who is terminally ill from choosing not to make that choice.

Whatever happens today, I am incredibly proud of the work that my fantastic team and the many campaigners have done on this hugely significant, emotional and sensitive subject. We need to be clear: a vote to take this Bill forward today is not a vote to implement the law tomorrow. It is a vote to continue the debate. It is a vote to subject the Bill to line-by-line scrutiny in Committee, on Report and on Third Reading. Then, of course, the Bill will go to the Lords for what I have no doubt will be further robust debate and scrutiny. This will be a thorough process, focused on one of the most significant issues of our time—an issue that people across the country clearly want us to address, none more so than the many families who are facing the brutal and cruel reality of the status quo. Today is the beginning, not the end, of that process, but the debate can continue only if colleagues join me in the Aye lobby today. I wholeheartedly encourage them to do so, and I commend the Bill to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Kim Leadbeater]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance on correcting the record. I said in my speech that I have consulted with the highest levels of the judiciary and the medical profession. I have received correspondence from the Judicial Office and wish to clarify my earlier comments. Although I have spoken to lawyers and judges, I should not have implied that the serving judiciary have in some way indicated their agreement with the Bill; they have not. The serving judiciary have been very clear that they have made no public comments about the Bill one way or the other. I apologise if I implied anything to the contrary.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Lady for correcting the record.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (First sitting)

Kim Leadbeater Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Good afternoon. In the Committee that I was in this morning, someone asked if they could remove their jacket, which seemed unbelievably spartan, but if any Member wishes to do so, they may. We are now sitting in public, so the proceedings at the present are being broadcast. Before we start, I have a couple of preliminary remarks. Please will you all turn off your mobile phones and other noisy electronic devices. I am also asked to remind you that tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings; if you want them, you will have to go outside.

We shall first consider the motion on the amendment paper tabled by the Member in charge of the Bill, Kim Leadbeater, which is to sit in private to consider matters relating to the sittings motion.

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee do sit in private to consider matters relating to the sittings motion.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and to be here for the first formal meeting of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill Committee. Ahead of the oral evidence sessions next week and the line-by-line scrutiny thereafter, we have two jobs to do this afternoon. One is to confirm the sitting times for the Committee and the other is to confirm the witnesses for oral evidence. Following discussions, I have taken the decision to have some of our sitting today in private. That is normal procedure for discussing witnesses and I think it is the right way to proceed, given that some of those discussions will probably involve conversations about the suitability of witnesses who are not here to speak for themselves. It would be inappropriate to discuss named individuals in such a way. Transparency is of course very important, but so is respecting individuals’ privacy. I hope that is clear to colleagues and to others.

I appreciate that members of the Committee and those viewing our proceedings may wish to know about the purpose and effect of this motion. Most Public Bill Committees are subject to programming, and the Programming Sub-Committee would discuss in private which witnesses to hear from. Similarly, Select Committees discuss in private which witnesses they will hear evidence from. Out of respect for the named individuals that we may call to hear evidence from, I propose that we discuss them informally in private. Once that informal discussion has concluded, the Committee will move back into a public session to formally consider the sittings motion. Any Member who wished to speak about the motion publicly or move an amendment would then be able to do so.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I look forward very much to the process of this Committee and to working with hon. Members to do what we can to ensure that a good Bill is presented back to the House.

I very much respect the points made by the hon. Member for Spen Valley. Nevertheless, I do have some real objections to the motion, which I encourage Members to oppose. The fact is that this debate was due to be held in public—in fact, people have travelled here in the expectation that they would be able to attend and observe our debate on the sittings motion—but last night, for reasons we do not fully understand, a decision was clearly made to table a motion that we sit in private. I would be grateful to understand why that decision was made so late.

My general point is that there is a clear public interest case. The public should understand why witnesses have been chosen and why other people have not, and if there are concerns about the witnesses, they should be aired publicly. This is the only time that the public are being consulted—that experts from outside Parliament have a chance to contribute to our deliberations. I fail to understand why those discussions cannot be held in public. The only argument that I can imagine—and the hon. Member for Spen Valley made it—is that Members might for some reason be uncivil or speak disrespectfully about potential witnesses, which I do not for a moment believe. I am sure that you, Sir Roger, or the other Chairs will keep us in order throughout our proceedings.

We are here to talk about the overall balance and particular qualifications of the witness list. Looking at the witness list that was presented this morning by the hon. Lady, I have very serious concerns, which should be aired publicly, about the list. It includes eight witnesses from foreign jurisdictions, who are being called to give evidence from abroad; all are supporters of assisted dying in their jurisdictions. There are no people speaking against the operations of assisted dying laws internationally. There are nine lawyers on the list—all of them, with the exception of three who appear to be neutral, in favour of a change in the law. There is not a single lawyer against this Bill. Sir James Munby was suggested, but I understand he has been removed. There might be a perfectly good reason for that, but he has spoken against the Bill.

There is nobody on the list from deaf or disabled people’s organisations, but the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities recognises the importance of engaging with such organisations in laws of this nature. With the exception of Dr Jamilla Hussain, there is no one on the witness list who can speak to the equality impacts of assisted dying.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

I look forward to the opportunity to discuss the sittings motion, which I hope we can do publicly. On a general point about process, the Bill was written by a campaign group.

[Kim Leadbeater]

That is not true.

[Danny Kruger]

Well, it had a significant input.

[Kim Leadbeater]

On a point of order, Sir Roger. That is categorically not true. The Bill was written with senior legislative expertise, along with myself as a sitting Member of Parliament and with esteemed colleagues. I take that point of offence quite personally.

[Danny Kruger]

Well, I hope that the hon. Member—

[Danny Kruger]

I apologise, Sir Roger, and I apologise to the hon. Lady for causing offence. I hope she will not be offended when points are made that she disagrees with.

[Kim Leadbeater]

It is a matter of fact.

[Danny Kruger]

I am happy to withdraw the suggestion that the Bill was written by a campaign group, on the basis of the hon. Lady’s assurance that it was written by herself. I hope it is not the case that there was significant input from campaigners. I do not see why there should not have been; I just mention it because the Bill came to us with no formal consultation. There was no impact assessment—

[Kim Leadbeater]

On a point of order, Sir Roger. Surely we are having a conversation about whether we sit in private or not. Can we keep to that matter?

[The Chair]

Forgive me: I am in the Chair and I will decide—but the hon. Lady is absolutely correct. Once again, I am afraid that the hon. Member for East Wiltshire is straying very wide of the motion on the amendment paper. I would be grateful if he would now come to his conclusion so we can start to move forward.

[Danny Kruger]

I absolutely will. In fact, I will finish there. The points I have been trying to make are simply in the light of the fact that if the hon. Lady’s motion is accepted, the public will no longer have the opportunity to hear any of our points on the sittings motion—on the process that we will be decide on.

[Kim Leadbeater]

On a point of order, Sir Roger. That, again, is factually incorrect. We have already said that there will be a private sitting for conversations about individual witnesses, including some that the hon. Gentleman has already started talking about, and then we will open again to the public so that everybody can hear the Committee’s conversations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

I beg to move,

That—

(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 21 January) meet—

(a) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 28 January;

(b) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Wednesday 29 January;

(c) at 11.30 am and 1.00 pm on Thursday 30 January.

(2) during further proceedings on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, the Committee do meet on Tuesdays and Wednesdays while the House is sitting at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm.

(3) the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table:

[Naz Shah]

I beg to move manuscript amendment (b), after “General Medical Council”, insert “, Royal College of Psychiatrists”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

Thank you, Sir Roger.

By adding Karon Monaghan KC, an eminent equality and human rights law barrister, amendment (e) would add balance among the lawyers in the Committee. I would also like to add James Munby, or someone from His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, because we need someone who can speak to court capacity issues in relation to the Bill. Professor Katherine Sleeman is a great expert on all these matters.

I am going through the list, and I am unclear what the Australian MP would add. If we remove the other two, there are other pro-AD Australian experts who will speak instead. If we replace those three, who are experts from—

[Kim Leadbeater]

On a point of order, Sir Roger. My hon. Friend has just mentioned two names that are not in her amendment, and I find that slightly confusing.

[Naz Shah]

These are replacements of the words in your paper.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

All the names that the hon. Member for Bradford West has suggested were indeed submitted, I believe, to the hon. Member for Spen Valley ahead of the deadline that she put to us at the end of last month.

[Kim Leadbeater]

On a point of order, Sir Roger. All those names were not submitted.

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Lady can feel free to intervene on me without troubling the Chair. I stand corrected if that is the case. We only received the final list this morning. It was necessary to make alternative suggestions ahead of that, which was done. I am now supporting the hon. Member for Bradford West in making suggestions for slight adjustments, as she suggests is all that is appropriate at this point. The list is unbalanced. I had to do a very quick analysis, and of the almost 60 names that have been put to us, 38 of them are in favour of the Bill and the principle of assisted dying, whereas there are only 20 who are opposed. There is an inherent imbalance there. It is only a quick analysis that has been done, and we will be able to do more of that subsequent to this sitting, but that is my impression.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I now call the promoter of the Bill. I will then call the mover of the amendment.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I thank colleagues for their time this afternoon. It has been an extremely productive session. I am very proud of the tone of the debate: I think we have done a very good job, as we did on Second Reading, of showing this place in a good light.

I reiterate that there are a range of views in this Bill Committee, in the same way that there are a range of views across the House on this significant and deeply emotive issue. There are a range of views among the witnesses we will hear from, and I spent a huge amount of time ensuring that. Colleagues have given me more than 100 names of people they might like to hear from. I had my own list of people I would like to hear from, and many of them are not on the list of those who will give oral evidence.

I have tried to be extremely balanced, so we will hear from people with a range of views and opinions, but most importantly we will hear from people with expertise. That is the purpose of the Committee: to hear from people who can advise us on the detail of the Bill. We will go through this Bill line by line, and we need to hear from people who can help us to do that. We have some fantastic expertise on the Committee, but for many of us there are areas that we need to learn more about. It is important that the witnesses give us the information to enable us to do that, rather than—as numerous colleagues have said—once again going over the fundamental principles around assisted dying, because we did an excellent job of that on Second Reading.

At the end of our endeavours, we will produce a piece of legislation that will be re-presented to the House, and colleagues will again have the opportunity to vote on it however they see fit. There may be people in this room who vote differently from how they voted on Second Reading; there may be colleagues out there who do likewise, one way or the other.

I am very clear about this Committee’s role, which is to work on the Bill together, collegiately and collaboratively, irrespective of our different views, and re-present it to the House so that the House can continue to do its job. It is not just the Commons; the Lords will also have the opportunity to scrutinise the Bill and table amendments. I have always been open about the fact that this is about us working together. Where the Bill needs to be amended to make it more robust and alleviate people’s concerns, whether that is around coercion or capacity, that is now the Committee’s job. I stand ready to serve and to do that.

We have spent a lot of time this afternoon on this, and quite rightly so. As far as I am concerned, we are now in a position to move forward. I am very happy that we will hear from so many witnesses over several days, and I am happy that I have added more time to that so that we can hear from more witnesses, which I think is important. As colleagues have said, our job now is to get on with this really important piece of work.

[Naz Shah]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, the promoter of this Bill, because she has been very helpful. She has certainly added one of my key witnesses to her list, and I am grateful for that.

I want to respond to some of the points that have been made. One of the biggest issues for me is amendment (b), which would insert “Royal College of Psychiatrists”. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford made the point that all psychiatrists come under the GMC, but not every member of the GMC is a psychiatrist. That speaks to the issue of coercion, mental health and capacity. That is the expertise that I am looking for in the line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill, and I would really like to hear from the Royal College of Psychiatrists.

I am happy to be guided by you, Sir Roger, because I am new to this process and I have not done a Bill of this nature before, but my only worry with the outside evidence and briefings is that they will not be on the record when we are looking at Hansard and seeing whether they have been taken into account. I would be happy to receive some assurance about that. Yes, we can organise lots of briefings and lots of experts, but does that not defeat the object of having this debate so robustly in the first instance?

The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough raised the issue of language, and the point about added value. I think that language is correct, because I do want to add value to this debate. I want value added, because it is important for my constituents that when I vote on the Bill on Report, I do so knowing that I have listened to all sides of the debate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud asked whether this is a for-and-against argument. In particular, he said that we do not need to hear from those who are opposed, because we want to strengthen the Bill so that it can go through the House. Although I appreciate the sentiment, I put it to everyone that it is not about getting the Bill through; it is about getting the right information so we can scrutinise whether it is fit to go through the House. For that reason, it is important to hear from those who are opposed. It is naive to think that we only need to hear from people who are in support.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Money)

Kim Leadbeater Excerpts

Money resolution
Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

On 29 November last year, in a debate widely described as showing Parliament at its best, this House sent the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill into Committee for scrutiny by a majority of 55. It was the clear will of this place that the Bill should be allowed to proceed, in the knowledge that Members will have further opportunities on Report and beyond to decide whether it should be enacted. For that process to continue, the resolution before us today must pass.

Those who oppose the Bill on principle—something they are absolutely entitled to do—are seeking to suggest that there is something extraordinary or improper about this process, and on that they are simply wrong. This is a standard procedure that comes before this House all the time. Without it, there can be no Bill—that, I humbly suggest, is sadly what some people intend. This is not a blank cheque, as some Members have suggested. The right time to discuss the detail of what expenditure may be required is when we know the final shape of the Bill. At that point, if Members are concerned about the expenditure required, or indeed anything else, they can of course vote as they wish.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

The hon. Lady says that the right time to discuss the capacity of the judiciary and health service to deliver the Bill is presumably once it has completed its Committee stage, but should the Committee that considers the Bill have the impact assessment that allows it to scrutinise it line by line, mindful of the implications that it might have on our health service and our judiciary?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

I respect the right hon. Gentleman’s question, but I would say that point is slightly out of the scope of the money resolution. However, I think it is a fair point, and I acknowledge that a lot of work is being done, as the Government said it would be, to look at the workability and operability of the Bill. I am working closely with Departments on those issues, and those conversations will continue, alongside the work of the Committee. I hope that provides him with some reassurance.

The other point is that I have never sought to stifle debate on the Bill or this really important issue; quite the contrary. I value it and I welcome it, but I do ask that it continues to be conducted in the same respectful and considered manner as on Second Reading. Where we disagree, let us do so with respect and without questioning each other’s motives or integrity.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on how she has conducted this important debate. On stifling debate, does she share my hope that there will be no vote against the money resolution, because such a vote would end debate? While there was a strong vote in support of the Bill, there were many strong arguments for amendment and there was opposition. Does she agree that that debate needs to happen as the Bill proceeds and not be stifled and ended today?

[Kim Leadbeater]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Having done such a powerful job of debating this issue on Second Reading, it is crucial that we continue that debate in the right manner, as Parliament voted to do. It would be wrong for anything that happens today to put a stop to that debate and those discussions.

Let us not forget that the public are watching our deliberations carefully and that the issue we are discussing means a huge amount to many people. It is extremely serious and, for many, hugely emotive. We owe it to our constituents to treat it with the seriousness it deserves. I ask Members to consider carefully what it would say about us as a Parliament if such an important debate were to be curtailed as a result of procedural manoeuvring, which, sadly, is what I worry is being attempted by some colleagues today.

The money resolution is not about the pros and cons or the detail of the Bill; it will simply allow for proper scrutiny—including of any cost involved—to continue, and mean that the Bill Committee can begin its important work. I urge Members to support the resolution.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Brian Mathew]

There would be added expense. Social workers are trained in understanding family dynamics, and need desperately to be involved in these situations.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I take that point on board. I had a very productive meeting with the Association of Palliative Care Social Workers yesterday, and we had a useful conversation on that issue.

[Brian Mathew]

I thank the hon. Lady.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Second sitting)

Kim Leadbeater Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Sarah Olney]

Q Can you talk a little bit more about whether you perceive any difficulties in having a definition of terminal illness in the Act? How do you think the medical profession will interpret that?

Professor Whitty: At the extremes —most people are at the extremes—it is very clear what is going to happen. For most people, you can say with confidence, barring some extraordinary accident like being hit by a car on the way out, “You’ll be fine in a year, even though you have heart disease, cancer or whatever.” At the other extreme, there are people who are clearly dying and will die in the next two or three days, and virtually nothing will change that reality.

What we are talking about in the Bill, of course, is a point between those stages, but people will definitely reach a point where there will be an inexorable and, importantly for the Bill, unreversible slide towards a point of death. People can make a reasonable central view, if they are experienced in a particular disease, about when the death is likely to happen, accepting that there is a spread around that. I am sure that the general public and Members of Parliament fully accept that this is not a precise science. This is a central view, and there is a big academic literature around this. Some people will die significantly earlier than they are predicted to; a small number will die very significantly later; and some people will certainly die a bit later or to some degree later. The central view is usually reasonably accurate—that someone is now on a pathway from which there is not going to be a return.

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

Q Thank you for coming to give evidence this morning, gentlemen. I would like to pick up on coercion and capacity, because they are two really important points in the Bill. I would like to know a little more about the work that doctors and nurses do to check for coercion and assess capacity when patients are making really important decisions and choices at the end of life, but maybe in other contexts as well. The Bill refers to the Mental Capacity Act. That Act is a big piece of legislation, but I am conscious that there is only a short reference to it in the Bill. Is there anything we could add to the Bill that would improve the robustness of the reference to mental capacity? What does it look like now, and is there anything we could add?

Professor Whitty: Duncan, why don’t you take the first bit and I will take the second?

Duncan Burton: In terms of looking for signs of coercion, all of our nursing and clinical staff have safeguarding training, which already looks at things like whether people are under financial coercion or other forms of abuse. That training is already in place and it is extensive across the NHS and social care. If the Bill is passed, we will need to look at how we strengthen that training in relation to spotting the potential signs of coercion in this space as well. Given that that mechanism is already in place, I think that would be an extension, so it is important that we factor that in. I am also mindful, given the scale of colleagues we have working across health and care, that the time between the Bill being passed and its implementation is sufficient that we enable everybody to receive that additional training, if it is required.

Professor Whitty: In terms of strengthening the Bill, as a practitioner, I was relieved that the decision was for the Bill—if it stays this way—to stick with the Mental Capacity Act, and that was for two reasons. First, that Act is used up and down the country by doctors and nurses every day; they know it and they understand it. Although, as you say, it is a large piece of legislation, it is one that people have worked through in practice multiple times. If you ask six or seven doctors, “Does this person have capacity?”, in almost all cases you will get six or seven identical answers, because people are used to using it.

It additionally has the advantage of being tested in the courts. That has gone as far as the Supreme Court, and the various ambiguities that were inevitably in the legislation have been clarified by senior judges. Therefore, to practitioners like me, it feels like a piece of robust and predictable legislation. Within the legislation, it is very important that there are some situations where you will need to call for additional assistance. For example, if someone has a co-existing mental health condition, you will probably want to ask a psychiatrist additionally whether that condition is interfering with the decision taken to the point that someone loses capacity for this very important decision. The level of capacity has to be reasonably high.

My own view is that starting this way is the sensible thing to do. That does not mean there could not be arguments for some additional points, but I cannot immediately—again, as a jobbing doctor—see ones where I think, “This is going to make a big difference.” The fact is that this is founded on a very established bit of well-used and well-recognised legislation.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Q To that point, in those conversations where patients are making very serious decisions, it is not uncommon that you would seek additional advice from other professions, such as a psychiatrist or possibly a social worker and other professionals, if you felt there was a need to do so.

Professor Whitty: The further you go up in the seriousness of the decision, the more you would do that. For example, if you were setting a finger that had been broken, you are not going to wait until a psychiatrist has said that you can do that. Within reason, provided that someone gives consent, you will do that. You will be much more cautious about moving forward with things like open heart surgery or deprivation of liberty if you think there is uncertainty. It should be clear. For the majority of people, it is very clear they have capacity or very clear they do not. There is a relatively small—but important—number in the middle where that is less clear and where additional views are relevant, particularly where there is a question of co-existing mental health issues. The fact of the mental health condition does not in itself mean that someone does not have capacity, but what has to be taken into account is, “Do they have the capacity for this decision at this point in time?” That is how the Mental Capacity Act works.

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

Q The Bill sets out that it should be brought into force within two years. If the intention is to provide assisted dying through the NHS, can the NHS be ready in time to deliver the service equitably and safely? What needs to be deprioritised in order for it do to so?

Professor Whitty: As we have seen in covid, the NHS, like any service, can swing very fast if there is a need for speed. In this case, I think most people in society would say that the key thing is to get this right. Personally, I would rather it was not running against a timeline. You would not want it to drag on forever, because then you have uncertainty for everybody, but I think Duncan and I would both say that two years seems a reasonable starting point. With some things, it might take longer than that to work out how we are going to provide this in the most safe and equitable way—for example, in dealing with minority and other groups. We need to get all that right and, at least at first pass, get it as close to good as we possibly can.

Equally, we may find when we first start using the legislation that there are some things that we had not considered at the beginning, and therefore we need to go back and improve on them because we just had not thought about them in the first way through the gates; that is why I hope that some of the more operational issues are done through secondary legislation and regulation. Inevitably, that is true for many bits of legislation, but it is particularly important here.

I go back to my very first comment: the central person here is an average citizen in their last six months of life. What we do not want is a system very difficult for them to navigate so that they spend their entire last six months of life—if the Bill is passed and they choose to take account of it; they are going to be a minority—stuck in a bureaucratic thicket. We need to keep this simple. My view is that the best safeguards are simple safeguards. Overcomplicating usually makes the safeguard less certain.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Olney]

Q Leading on from Dr Opher’s question about the “must refer” clause, you and Professor Whitty both stress the importance of the relationship between the doctor and the patient, yet there may be doctors who feel very strongly against mentioning assisted dying. Given the existence of clause 4(5) and the “must refer”, do you think there is a danger that there might be doctors who would be reluctant to provide a prognosis of six months or less if they thought that that would make the patient eligible for assisted dying, and that simply was not something they could support?

Dr Green: That is why it is important that doctors should be able to opt out at any stage of this. There are doctors who would find it difficult to do that, and it is important that their position is respected.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Q On the point about referral, what happens in the case of abortion? That is one of the closest parallels we can get. If we have a doctor who is not comfortable having that conversation, presumably they cannot just leave that person with nowhere to go.

Dr Green: What would happen is that the doctor would provide the patient—through their receptionist, through leaflets or through a telephone number—with somewhere they could get the information. You cannot just abandon a patient. They have to be sure that the patient has the ability to do what the patient wants to do.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Q Exactly, so although the terminology of “refer” might not be quite right, are we saying that we have got to provide that patient with a course of action?

Dr Green: Yes. It is the “referral” word that is problematic for us.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Q That is very helpful. Let me turn to when the GMC guidance on arrangements about assistance to die is raised with practitioners. Part of the guidance is that practitioners have to

“respect competent patients’ right to make decisions about their care, including their right to refuse treatment, even if this will lead to their death”.

I am interested in how that fits in with those very difficult conversations. When a patient executes that right to refuse treatment, are those cases logged? Are they monitored or reported on?

Mark Swindells: There was an important piece of case law—I think in the 1990s—that clarified that a patient refusing treatment and subsequently dying is not an act of suicide. You are right that our guidance talks about the importance of a doctor explaining to the patient about the likely course of action in terms of the option for no treatment. Again, that is intertwined with the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and puts a lot of autonomy in the space of the patient, along with the consent case law that we covered before.

On the previous point about referrals, our guidance is similar to what Dr Green was saying: in the case of conscientious objection—for example, on abortion—the important point is that, from the patient perspective, they are not left with nowhere to go. If that assists, that may be a principle that helps and reads across.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Q On the point about reporting, where patients take that right to refuse treatment, capacity must be assessed at that point if a patient has said, “Look, I don’t want any more treatment.” That is quite an important point to assess capacity. Are those cases logged and recorded?

Mark Swindells: Yes. It would be important for the patient’s records to cover the points of consent and that the doctor has recorded that they have interacted with the patient that way. I do not believe it is centrally held or collated in any sense like that, but I may be wrong.

[Jake Richards]

Q Dr Green, on subsections (4) and (5) of clause 4 and the information services, as opposed to the referral to a practitioner, I think your point has some weight. In terms of the rest of clause 4 as drafted, it has an opt-in, it gives wide discretion to practitioners and there is no obligation to raise it, so from my understanding of your written evidence, it ticks all the boxes. Is that fair?

Dr Green: Yes, with the exception of the referral.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Abbott]

Q My question, which relates to some of the points made earlier, is for Glyn Berry. Your organisation has recommended a new role: the approved palliative care professional. To go into the detail a bit more, you make a number of recommendations on what that role would include, such as ensuring that the person has the mental capacity to make the decision. First, are you therefore saying that this new role should sit alongside the two-doctor process, which has already been outlined in terms of final decision making? If the approved palliative care professional felt, for example, that this person did not have mental capacity, should they be able to, as it were, stop the process?

Secondly, what level of training would that person need in terms of time? We have, for example, been talking about a two-year process. If this new role came into effect, how long would that person need to be trained for to fulfil it adequately? Thirdly, do you have a sense of how many of these professionals we would need to make this a functioning system? Those are three separate questions.

Glyn Berry: To answer the first question, we feel, for the reasons I outlined earlier, that the role of an approved palliative care professional would sit beside the role of clinicians, balancing clinical and social observation and assessment.

In terms of the training, we, as social workers, already have continuous training opportunities to become best interests assessors, practice educators and approved mental health practitioners, so we envisage that the training would very much be along those lines. Doing those roles currently requires a course of training at university.

Our thoughts, at the moment, are that that would be for palliative care social workers, whether they are in charities, trusts or local authorities, or are independent, because that is where things sit with us at the moment and we know our roles. We like to think that it would roll out to other professionals, however, because assessing capacity is not specifically the role of the social worker; other professionals are able to, and do, complete capacity assessments.

It is quite difficult to answer your question in terms of numbers at the moment. If we were talking specifically about palliative care social workers, we currently have around 200 members in our association, but there will be other people out there who are not members and we do not know who they are. It is a role that could expand.

One of our other recommendations is that palliative and end-of-life care, as an aside to your question, is also brought into qualifying roles for people in training, such as doctors, nurses and allied health professionals, as well as social workers. We could see that happening in the future.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Q Thank you for coming and giving evidence today, and for meeting with me recently. You both represent organisations that have neutral positions on assisted dying. I am really interested in this multidisciplinary approach that you are talking about, and I think it is a really valuable conversation, so thank you for raising those points.

I want to ask a bit more about what this end-of-life conversation looks like in your experience, because you are absolutely right; of all the people who are spending time with patients in their last few months of life, it is often nurses and palliative care social workers. You have a really important role to play.

I am also interested in what this would look like in reality. There has been talk of a kind of separation of palliative care and assisted dying, but, actually, I think we should be looking to embrace a holistic approach to end-of-life conversations and end-of-life care, which is what has happened in other jurisdictions. You might have a patient who has signed up for assisted dying but never does it because they have good palliative care and they work with their palliative care experts and specialists. Therefore, I think it is important that we do not try to separate these things.

I would like your views on that, but I think that one of the strengths is that having these conversations about death, about dying and about end of life is a really positive thing. Your members have an important role to play in that, so could you talk a little bit about the holistic approach that your members take?

Professor Ranger: You are right regarding the conversations and the care around dying. Having those conversations with people around pain management and symptom management is particularly the role of palliative care nurses. With assisted dying, I think the conversation is sometimes slightly different. It is talking more as a nurse in some ways, because the primary reason that assisted dying is often a discussion is a lack of autonomy, not pain. Therefore, the conversation generally tends to go in a slightly different way.

Symptom control, and being scared of pain, is understandable, and we absolutely have the ability to get that right for people, but when it comes to seeking assisted dying, the primary reason is usually autonomy, rather than pain and fear of dying. Therefore, in a practical way, I think an experienced nurse or doctor will start to gauge the difference in those conversations, because they are different. I think it is about being really clear around those conversations and really listening to what people have to say, and then having a way to be able to ensure that what an individual wants is something that you have got, and that you listen to.

I absolutely agree with Glyn about safeguards and all the things that we absolutely need to make sure are there, but the whole point of assisted dying is not to be paternalistic, but to respect autonomy. Whatever safeguards we put in with that, we have to be really careful not to ignore that right of autonomy, which is primarily what this Bill is trying to preserve.

I think it is about being really vigilant and listening. A primary role of a nurse is not to advocate their personal view, but to really listen to somebody else and to ensure that what they want is pursued. In all that discussion, it is really important that that does not get lost.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Q That is incredibly helpful, thank you. You are absolutely right to bring it back to patient autonomy—patient choice—so that, while putting all the safeguards in place, we are very clear that it is their genuine choice based on what they really want to do. It sounds as though you are saying—

[The Chair]

Order. Is there a question there?

[Kim Leadbeater]

Yes. It sounds as though you are saying that your professionals are trained to have those conversations, which is very reassuring. Glyn, do you want to add anything?

Glyn Berry: Just to say that I absolutely agree with Professor Ranger. My experience of working with palliative nurses, and nurses in general, is long, and I have historically had exceptionally positive experiences and continue to do so. I think that we learn from each other, and it is really important that we can have those conversations with the person and ask questions that they might never have been asked before, such as, “What is it that you want?”

Professor Ranger is absolutely right in terms of autonomy and the person having control, because once that diagnosis is given, it can be a downward spiral for a person and they feel that they lose control. Patients and families talk about that—about having no control over what is happening. In effect, that is true in terms of what is happening in the disease or illness trajectory, but it is so important to remind a person that they are still the person that they were before that diagnosis, that they will continue to be that person, and that they still have a voice. In both our roles professionally, and alongside other clinicians, that is what we seek to do all the time. That is why a multidisciplinary team approach is so important.

Ultimately, we could find that, once you have asked all the appropriate questions and you have put potential safeguards in place following conversations, a person may not choose that particular point to end their life—as you mentioned, Kim—and may continue to live to the end of their natural life.

[Sojan Joseph]

Q When the RCN Scotland director gave evidence to the Scottish Parliament during the discussion of the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill, he expressed the RCN’s concern that there were not sufficient safeguards in place to protect nurses and nursing practice around assisted dying in Scotland. Are you satisfied that the Bill we have before us in England and Wales addresses those concerns, or would you like to see amendments to ensure that the mental health and wellbeing of nurses involved in the process are protected, should the Bill become law?

Professor Ranger: Yes, we would want to see more support and protection for nurses. Of course, in the exploring of assisted dying legislation in Scotland, the second clinical decision maker is a nurse—so it a doctor and a nurse, whereas in England and Wales we are looking at two medically qualified practitioners. We absolutely want to make sure that the skills and support is there for nursing staff, and the ability—as I heard our medical colleagues saying—to not be involved in assisted dying absolutely has to be supported. It cannot be an expectation of the role; it has to be something you choose to proactively take part in as a conscious decision. It cannot ever be just an expectation of a nurse. We are absolutely adamant about that. The Bill cannot just support the needs of medical staff—nursing absolutely has to be included within that, both in skills and support.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Third sitting)

Kim Leadbeater Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Tom Gordon]

Q Since the assisted dying Bill had its Second Reading, we have seen announcements from the Government about investment into palliative care. Obviously that is mostly capital and we need to see more long-term funding. Do you feel we are already seeing increases as a result of this conversation? Is there any reason why that should not continue?

Dr Cox: I would love to see it continue. I am part of the commission on palliative and end of life care. There is no guarantee that the recommendations of that commission will be funded, and that is what concerns me. I would love to see that happen. Would it not be great if the two could happen simultaneously? But there is no guarantee that that will happen.

James Sanderson: I want to come in on your point and agree with Sarah’s points. Obviously, we welcomed the Government’s announcement of the additional funding for the hospice sector, but the Committee will be aware that the hospice sector currently receives only about 30% of its funding from statutory sources. We are therefore reliant on the good will of the population to raise money and support us in various ways, and through retail and other ventures that we have.

On the point about universality of service, we have in the Health and Care Act 2022 a requirement for integrated care boards to commission palliative care services that meet the needs of their population, but although there is guidance as to what that should look like, there is not universal take-up of that guidance and delivery of all of the stated services. Although that is outside the scope of this Bill, it comes back to the context of how much the overall position can be strengthened across the country. The context for anybody looking to make a decision is within the same space. As Dr Clarke said in respect of informed choice, if the context is the same for everybody, we can have more confidence that that informed choice is made at the right level.

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

Q Goodness me, there is a lot to cover.

To go back to your point, Mr Sanderson, it is important to acknowledge the fantastic work that palliative care professionals do. Indeed, it is extremely important that we are having these conversations, which is why we gave extra time to this panel of witnesses.

Dr Cox, on your point about the pressure on the individual doctors involved in the process, the Bill is very clear that if they do not have the relevant specialism, they must refer to a specialist in that condition, and they “can” refer to a psychiatrist. There is probably consensus that we maybe need to strengthen the Bill in that regard. When there are doubts around capacity, doctors probably “must” refer to a psychiatrist. That is something I am taking away from these sessions.

I was interested in the comments about the multidisciplinary approach. We heard about that this morning from colleagues in social work and in nursing. I would love to know your thoughts, Dr Ahmedzai, about the idea of a multidisciplinary approach. I think there is a lot of value in that.

Dr Clarke, on this concept around training, it worries me that we have seen this afternoon a very different picture painted by you and others compared with what we heard this morning, when we had doctors and nurses telling us that they regularly assess for capacity and coercion. They said it is part of their day-to-day work and they were very confident in their ability to do that. Training is fundamental, and this is an opportunity to look at gold-standard training. I would be interested to know your thoughts on that.

Dr Ahmedzai: You asked me about the multidisciplinary nature of this. I am really glad you raised that, because we seem to be focusing on palliative care as being very professional, and I would remind people that there are levels of palliative care. A lot of palliative care is given not by specialists like the three of us here but by generalists—either GPs, as we have heard, or by oncologists or geriatricians. When we talk about increasing palliative care and improving palliative care, it is not just about more doctors like us working at a specialist level.

The other thing is that it is not just doctors. We have to acknowledge that nurses are on the frontline; they do so much more than doctors. When doctors clock off at 5 o’clock in those sad institutions that still do not provide 24/7 cover, there are nurses at the bedside all around the clock. Then, there are social workers, physiotherapists and others. If we are talking about meeting the needs of people who may not necessarily have pain but have other forms of suffering or worries, which are not even physical—the loss of dignity and the loss of independence—nurses are so good at supporting people in that. A doctor will just get in the way.

What we need to do is make sure that we are addressing the reasons why many people choose this. I know, from speaking to people abroad, that it is loss of dignity and loss of independence. Is that not a legitimate reason for wishing that you were not a burden on somebody, or on the state even? It is really important that we consider that.

The other thing to bring in as well, if we are thinking about the big picture, is another elephant in the room: palliative care is not strictly speaking actually in the NHS—not all of it. A lot of it is outside of the NHS, for historical reasons from 50 or 60 years ago when decisions were made. Although there are excellent charities providing discrete areas of it, we rely so much on non-NHS services. You would never think of going to a charity to get your heart transplant or your kidney dialysis. We need to confront the fact that palliative care is fractured because of that history and the genesis of how palliative care came to be. It is not just NHS. We must think about the multidisciplinarity.

Dr Clarke: Regarding training and how much it is required, I would not be the first person to make the observation that sometimes doctors can be very pleased with their own abilities at a particular practice, and that practice might be having a conversation where you are assessing someone’s capacity.

What is interesting as a palliative care specialist is that I and my team will be asked to get involved with patients in every possible bit of the hospital—surgical wards, medical wards, intensive care, emergency departments—so you actually see a huge number of patients being treated by many different teams and many different doctors, junior and senior, all of whom are having these difficult, nuanced conversations around the end of life with varying degrees of skill. Of course some doctors and nurses are superbly skilled at having them, and I would say that there are many who are not.

The reason training is so important is that it is a little bit like Donald Rumsfeld’s unknown unknowns. You might not even be aware of the fact that you have caused a patient or their family distress. In a conversation where fear is a dominant part—the patient is fearful of suffering misery and loss of dignity at the end of life, but they may not voice that—you as the doctor can be completely oblivious of the fact that you have sort of stamped over those unvoiced fears with your hobnail boots. You are not aware of it.

This idea that a vulnerable patient needs to be absolutely at the centre of any conversation you are having is quite radical in some parts of the NHS. It needs to be taught much more assertively from day one of medical school, so that vulnerable patients are always at the centre of the room. That is why I think the single most important thing for the Bill and its safety comes down to training and actually recognising that these conversations are difficult and nuanced. If we assume that, we are going to make sure that the Bill is as safe as it can be.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Can I ask a quick follow-up, Chair?

[The Chair]

We will come back to that once I get other Members in.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

One last question, very quickly.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Q I have a very quick one. You talked about inequality in healthcare and in systems. What I would like to come back to is the status quo. What are your comments on the inequality that exists currently, where assisted dying is available to people who have got the money to go to Switzerland, or another jurisdiction, and have an assisted death? I ask Dr Ahmedzai, first of all.

Dr Ahmedzai: Clearly, British people have had that option for many years, since Switzerland first offered that. It is clear that two things happen. One is that it selects people who are better off and more functionally capable—they can do it—so it discriminates against disabled people. Also, people tend to do it long before they need to, when they are still fit. That is because mostly, they want to go on their own, without dragging relatives along. It is doubly damaging to families who are going through an illness with somebody who is dying. They have to say goodbye to them long before they need to. However, that is because we do not offer that option here.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Does anybody else want to comment? Dr Cox?

Dr Cox: I am happy to. Of course we do not want people to have to make that choice. I will refer to everything I have said before: are they are making a real choice, and have they had access to really excellent palliative care?

I also make a brief point about the impact of the discussion around what dying looks like that the Bill has raised, and the fact that the stories that have been told have suggested to many members of the public that death is inevitably ugly, horrific and dramatic. Actually, that has made many people fearful, and they have been emailing me and saying, “I am now afraid of dying, and I wasn’t before.” They may then choose assisted dying before they need to because they have had a fear instilled in them that death is inevitably horrible and dramatic.

[Kim Leadbeater]

But those deaths do exist.

[The Chair]

Order. That brings us to the end of the time allotted to the Committee to ask questions. I thank our witnesses on behalf of the Committee for their evidence.

Examination of Witnesses

Sir Max Hill KC, Alex Ruck Keene KC and Sir Nicholas Mostyn gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We will now hear oral evidence from Dr Ryan Spielvogel, who is senior medical director for aid in dying services at Sutter Health, California, and Dr Jessica Kaan, who is medical director for End of Life Washington. Both witnesses will appear via Zoom. I call on Members to ask questions, but in view of the last point of order, I must be absolutely clear that I will interrupt if questions to the witnesses are too long. We do not have much time and people want to get their questions in—there has to be an element of self-discipline in that regard.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Q I will try to be brief. I thank the witnesses for joining us from wherever they are in the world—it is great to have you with us today. I will get straight to the point. There is understandably a significant amount of nervousness about the potential change that the Bill would create within England and Wales. Could you talk to us a little bit about what the process has been like in your jurisdictions and what it looks like now? What are your experiences, particularly focusing on questions around mental capacity and coercion? Dr Spielvogel can go first.

Dr Spielvogel: Thank you all for having me today. I am Ryan Spielvogel and I am senior medical director for assisted dying services for Sutter Health in California. I have been an assisted dying physician for the past eight and a half years, since the law went into effect here, so I have seen many terminally ill people going through the process.

You asked specifically about coercion and capacity. Determining mental capacity is something that we use physicians to do every day. There are codified steps and processes for us to be able to assess a person’s capacity. Capacity for anything, for any procedure or medical intervention, is presumed—that the patient has capacity—until they are deemed to not have capacity. We do that through asking questions, determining their understanding of their disease process, asking them to repeat what their understanding of their options is, and making a decision and then telling us their judgment as to why they came to that decision.

That is something that we do every day. It is oftentimes informal. For instance, if I am prescribing someone blood pressure medication, I might not go through the entire process of assessing capacity, but in longer or higher-stakes conversations like end-of-life discussions, I usually do ask somebody to repeat back to me what they understand of their disease process, their options, what their decisions are and why they are making those decisions. That is basically exactly what I do in these conversations.

In terms of coercion, I understand the concern. It is a very valid concern that people have. I have seen this in many jurisdictions in the US, where different states are considering legalising assisted dying, but I will tell you that in practice it just does not happen. I have seen assisted dying laws go into practice across numerous states and have helped many, many people through this process, and I have never seen a case where I even suspected coercion. People are just not that good as actors.

So we get the family out of the room. We dig deep into their concerns, their justifications and the reasoning behind their choices. It is often crystal clear, when you are speaking to someone who is suffering from a terminal illness. They are very focused on their symptoms, very focused on their quality of life, very focused on their suffering. I do not ever get the sense from them that their family, their doctors or anybody is coercing them into the decision. In fact, if anything, I have seen it many times the other way around. I tend to see it where the patient is really ready to let go, but the family is really not ready to let go, and the family puts up varying degrees of roadblock to the patient accessing assisted dying. I have seen many cases of people being coerced out of it; I have never seen someone being coerced into it.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Q That is incredibly helpful—thank you. Dr Kaan, do you want to add anything to that, and maybe touch on the training that takes place around identifying these things and the conversations that take place?

Dr Kaan: I echo exactly what Dr Spielvogel has said. As part of our medical training, we are trained to assess capacity in both small and big ways, depending on the size of the decision at hand, as he said. Throughout our medical training, we are trained to do that and to assess with a patient progressively over time, as we are seeing them in subsequent visits as well. This is really no different from that, although obviously the stakes are a bit higher than a blood pressure medication discussion.

We look at whether, for instance, the patient is able to voice a reason for making their decision. Do they have a logic behind it? Do they have a set of values that they can express? Is their decision consistent over time? We are looking at a longitudinal assessment, rather than just one fixed moment in time. Over the course of our assessments, it really does become clear in almost all cases that somebody either does or does not have the capacity to make this decision or any decision. This is really not outside the realm of what physicians are trained to do in any other case of medical decisions, especially large ones.

In the case of coercion, I agree that virtually all the time it is the opposite way: family members and loved ones are well-intentionedly trying to coerce or convince someone not to make this choice or not to proceed with this option, which they may have available, rather than pushing them to do it. I think the way to properly assess that is to ask open-ended questions: as Dr Spielvogel has said, to have them in the room alone, at least for a portion of the assessment, so you can have a one-on-one conversation; to ask the questions in various ways, so you are seeing the consistency of answers over time; and to look for non-verbal cues that may indicate that something else is going on. I have also never come across a case where I felt that a patient was being coerced into this decision by a family member, but rather the opposite.

[Bambos Charalambous (Southgate and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Q My question is about how the legislation is going and how you have implemented it. What changes have you made since it began? What teething problems did you find as you were going along? What adjustments have you made to your process?

Dr Spielvogel: The original version was called the End of Life Option Act. It legalised assisted dying in California when it went into effect in 2016. It was then amended in 2021, I believe; the effect of the main amendment was to shorten the waiting period. There was a 14-day mandatory waiting period between two verbal requests that a patient would give directly to their physician. What we found when we were studying it was that approximately 30% of people died during the waiting period.

There were many conversations with patients. The thought process behind the waiting period is that somebody is making a persistent, well-thought-out and non-capricious decision when they are asking for this, but there is a false premise there—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Let us be clear. Witnesses can submit written evidence until the Committee reports to the House. It is open to Members to individually write to witnesses and invite them to give written evidence, if they so wish. My advice to the hon. Member is that if he wishes to look at this in a more formal way or through a more formal mechanism, he is to speak to the Committee Clerks, because it is beyond my remit.

We now come to motions (a) to (d) amending the sittings motion tabled by the Member in charge. I have selected the amendment tabled to motion (a) and will group all four motions and the amendment for debate. I will first call Kim Leadbeater to move motion (a), then Naz Shah to move the amendment. The scope of the debate is all four motions and the amendment.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I beg to move amendment (a), in the list of witnesses set out in the table in the Sittings Motion agreed by the Committee on 21 January 2025, after Mencap (Thursday 30 January, until no later than 5.00 pm), leave out “Representative of Senedd Cymru” and insert—

“Professor Emyr Lewis (Emeritus Professor, Department of Law and Criminology, University of Aberystwyth), Royal College of General Practitioners, Royal College of Psychiatrists.”

These amendments allow additional witnesses to be called to give oral evidence, including representatives from Disability Rights UK, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, and an expert in Welsh devolution and constitutional matters.

As the sessions today have shown, hearing from expert witnesses is an extremely important part of this process, so I hope I have the support of the Committee in making these additions. On the motion to call additional witnesses tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West, I respect the suggestion but I am confident that we have an eminently qualified witness to cover issues of coercion and domestic abuse in Professor Jane Monckton-Smith, who was suggested by my hon. Friend.

We have also heard today—and will hear from many witnesses over the next few days—from medical doctors, social workers, nurses, palliative care experts and geriatricians. That is around 50 witnesses in total. While I fully appreciate that a wide range of additional charities and organisations has valuable contributions to make, I would encourage them to submit written evidence so that the Committee has the benefit of their thoughts.

Regarding the start of the line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill, given the huge volume of evidence—both oral and written—that we have received and are still receiving, I have consulted with colleagues across the Committee and there is a consensus that having next week to absorb and evaluate the evidence, and to prepare any amendments in light of it, is extremely important. Consequently, we would begin line-by-line scrutiny on Tuesday 11 February, as per the amendment.

I hope that these amendments demonstrate the robust approach that the Committee and I are taking to our work, and I encourage colleagues to support them.

[Naz Shah]

I beg to move an amendment to amendment (a), at end insert—

“Richard Robinson, CEO of Hourglass, Cherry Henry-Leach of STADA, Standing Together Against Domestic Abuse ”.

I completely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley and I am grateful to her for adding Professor Jane Monckton-Smith to the witness list. I also absolutely agree that the evidence we receive is really valuable.

This is an amendment tabled yesterday by the Mother of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) yesterday, to which I have added my name.

The reason for the amendment is that Hourglass focuses on domestic abuse of older people and it has particularly noted that the majority of such victims are female. Hourglass estimates that one in six elderly people are victims of coercion in the UK. This raises serious concerns that such people could be pushed into ending their lives if the Bill is enacted. Hourglass has not published a public opinion on the Bill.

Standing Together Against Domestic Abuse has said that

“We must echo concerns raised by the VAWG sector”—

the violence against women and girls sector—

“and disability activists about the bill’s current safeguards. There is insufficient clarity on what constitutes coercion and limited reflection on carer capacity to support someone terminally ill. Without robust measures, there is a real risk that assisted dying could be exploited as a tool for coercion or even femicide.

Statistics show that over 88% of unlawful ‘mercy killings’ are perpetrated by men towards women, often involving violent means. These troubling realities demand urgent consideration in shaping this legislation.

We also highlight the health sector’s role in identifying domestic abuse. With 80% of victim-survivors having their first or only point of contact in healthcare, it is critical that health professionals are equipped to identify and respond to abuse.

We call on the Government to ensure the proposed bill includes stringent safeguards and that healthcare systems are equipped to recognise and prevent the potential misuse of assisted dying. Femicide is already a crisis in the UK, and no law should inadvertently contribute to its escalation.”

All my adult life, I have had experience of dealing with domestic abuse and coercion, and I draw on that experience to speak to these amendments. Although Professor Jane Monckton-Smith is an expert, she is an academic. These two organisations work with people who have been victims of abuse.

In addition, we had an official meeting with the Clerk to discuss the proposals for Committee sittings. It was said at that meeting that we would only have witnesses who would give evidence, particularly in person, that would contribute to the deliverability and the workability of the Bill. Since then, we have had families added to the list of witnesses. That adds weight to the argument that we should have witnesses who are providing a service to victims directly.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Fourth sitting)

Kim Leadbeater Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 29th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q Dr Fellingham, given your experience of both the British and the Australian healthcare systems, do you believe there are any fundamental differences that would affect how assisted dying is implemented in this country? If there are, how might we be able to mitigate them?

Dr Fellingham: In the UK you are missing a number of the challenges that we have, such as the geographical challenges in a state as vast as Western Australia. You also have a golden opportunity to look, as you are, across every jurisdiction that already has laws in operation and cherry-pick the best bits of what is working well in those jurisdictions, and so create the very best, most robust and most patient-centred legislation you can.

The healthcare systems are broadly similar. We are both first-world, developed western countries. We are still operating in a context of resource limitation, but not resource limitation that is so prohibitive that it would make it particularly difficult to enact a law in the UK. The United Kingdom would be broadly able to follow any of the laws that exist in Australia and implement them very successfully.

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

Q Thank you for joining us this morning. I am interested in following up on what Dr Mewett said about the relationship with palliative care, which has an important role to play in end of life treatment. What is the relationship between assisted dying and the palliative care world like? Also, I would like to hear a bit more about the multidisciplinary board, which I think you set up, Dr McLaren. What does the multidisciplinary approach look like in your jurisdictions?

Dr Mewett: There is no doubt that traditionally palliative care has eschewed any idea of voluntary assisted dying, for a number of historical reasons that I have spoken about in other fora and will not go into now. But it is changing, and there is a general change in attitude, especially among the younger palliative care training doctors and young clinicians, who see this as part of patient-centred care, honouring the patient’s autonomy and choice, while still addressing deeply their concerns and suffering in pain management and so on.

That will see a change. I do understand where it has come from. When one looks at it almost forensically, it does not stack up and will continue not to stack up to have someone saying, “Well, VAD is not part of palliative care.” VAD is part of patient choice and it will be part of palliative care ongoing. That will evolve over time.

I am sorry but I did not quite catch the meaning of the question about the multidisciplinary aspect, Ms Leadbeater.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Q Was it a multidisciplinary board that Dr McLaren set up to look at the safety and quality of voluntary assisted dying?

Dr McLaren: This was born out of when we started as a Victorian group. We were very individual and we interpreted the law in our own ways. We complied with it as best we could, but we did not have a centralised discussion board or peer group set up at the time. We have propagated advice through the other states to ensure that there are what we call community practices, where clinicians can discuss their cases and learn from each other.

Several months after, from I think June to November, we had no interconnection with other VAD-practising doctors. In November, we had a forum set up where we are able to connect and talk about difficult cases and how we would each interpret them. As the subsequent states came online, we were approached by some of the practitioners from other states saying, “We don’t really want to reinvent that wheel, so can we join your community of practice?” Because it was set up by our state government, they were unable to join, so I saw a gap in terms of creating an organisation where we could propagate that knowledge and not all start from scratch.

It initially started as a group of voluntary assisted dying medical practitioners, and we would discuss cases across the board and ask things like, “What would you do under your legislation?” and we all learned from that. Then we were approached by pharmacists, nurses and others involved in voluntary assisted dying provision, including legislators who wanted to contribute to the custodians of the voluntary assisted dying law, who are the people who actually run the projects. That then led to the creation of Voluntary Assisted Dying Australia and New Zealand, which is a multidisciplinary group of predominantly doctors, but we do have nurses, pharmacists and legislators involved. We have had two annual conferences where we discuss issues faced by many of our practitioners. That has been a great resource for people.

We are developing standards. We feel that in our legislation there was perhaps too much about instilling what the standards are. We feel as though the appropriate-ness of such things as telehealth should be regulated via standards rather than via legislation, which it currently is in Australia. These are the types of topics we have weighed in on and created position statements for in order to protect the laws that we believe in, uphold and like to think of ourselves as responsible practitioners of.

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

Q Dr Fellingham, to circle back to the issue of training, could you go into more detail about what the initial training consists of—the nature of it and the number of hours—and how that compares with the refresher training? What is the system for mentorship, supervision, appraisal and continuing professional development requirements?

Dr Fellingham: It is important to reflect that only people who are at quite a significant point through their own specialty careers are eligible to become assisted dying practitioners in this country. For instance, I was a consultant anaesthetist and I had already been practising for more than a year. I had lived experience of caring for patients both living and dying, both anticipated and unexpectedly, over a career spanning more than 10 years, before I came to the point of assisted dying.

To become eligible to offer assisted dying, I then had to undertake training developed in a special package by the Queensland University of Technology. That training package takes about two days to complete and there is an exam at the end before someone can become eligible. The exam has a 95% pass rate.

Once someone has qualified with that training, they are offered the opportunity to give their details to the state-wide care navigator service. The vast majority of people opt to do that. Once they do that, they basically become engaged in this incredibly supportive, collaborative and nurturing multidisciplinary team within a professional organisation that, in our state, covers all the assisted dying practitioners—the doctors—but also the care navigators, the pharmacy service, the individual voluntary assisted dying programme managers and the end of life choices co-ordinators, who exist in all our hospital systems.

Because we are all consultants in our own specialties, there is not the same level of supervisory oversight as we would give to junior doctors—there are not forms that we fill in; we do not accredit one another—but we do acknowledge that we are all learning and growing in this space. These are new laws: even the oldest in Australia has only been going for five years. Every single one of us is motivated from a place of wanting to support, collaborate, grow and learn from one another, and ensure that the care we are offering to people in this challenging space is of the absolute highest quality.

We have a really robust community of practice. We meet monthly. Half those meetings are online to allow our regional practitioners to join, and half of them are face to face. They are extremely well-attended closed sessions where, especially over the time that we have developed relationships with one another, we find an incredibly supportive space to share our experiences and to learn, grow and develop from one another.

In terms of CPD, we all have to maintain our professional registration. I have both general and specialist registration with our supervisory body, which is like the General Medical Council. I complete my mandatory CPD requirements each year, as per my specialist college. On top of that, I have just redone the refresher training, which is once every three years. That is just what was mandated in our state. If someone has not done VAD practice, they have to do the whole thing again. That is only for people who have been active in this space. That training is shorter—it is about half a day—but it is really a reflection of what we are doing on a weekly basis. We are living and breathing this work, and really strongly collaborating with everybody else who does it.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I am afraid that has to bring this session to a conclusion. Dr McLaren, Dr Mewett and Dr Fellingham, thank you for giving up your evening for us. The Committee is indebted to you. Thank you very much indeed and have a good night. While we are changing over, I call the Member in charge of the Bill to move a motion.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I beg to move,

That in the list of witnesses set out in the table in the sittings resolution agreed by the Committee on 21 January 2025 and amended on 28 January 2025, leave out “Professor Jane Monckton-Smith OBE” and insert “Hourglass”.

Unfortunately, we found out in the early hours of this morning that one of our witnesses is unable to join us this afternoon.

Question put and agreed to.

Examination of Witnesses

Professor Tom Shakespeare, Dr Miro Griffiths, Yogi Amin and Chelsea Roff gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I am sorry, but we still have more Members and questions than we have time, so I am going to come down to one question per Member.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Q Thank you for coming to give evidence this morning—it is incredibly helpful. I am going to come back to clause 2 of the Bill, which concerns the definition of terminal illness. I am very clear on who the Bill is aimed at helping and who it is not aimed at involving. The definition says that the person has to have

“an inevitably progressive illness, disease or medical condition which cannot be reversed by treatment”.

It also says, for the avoidance of doubt, that this cannot be “a mental disorder” or “a disability”. I hear your concerns, and I want to support you and work with you on this. I am keen to know: what else do you want to see in the Bill that would reassure you that this is not about disabled people or people with mental disorders?

Dr Griffiths: I am conscious of time, so I will be very quick. My first point would be, why would you stick it at six months then? Why not have it at seven days, for example, as a way to take out our concerns? If you are talking about prognosis, let us go back to Chelsea’s point and the point that I made before. My condition is a neuromuscular condition. I have had meetings with clinicians where some have referred to it as a terminal illness, some have referred to it as a life-limiting condition, and others have referred to it as a progressive condition. The articulation of the ideas and the ways in which we think about conditions show the complexity of the issue. We are talking about terminal illness, and people who are terminally ill do constitute disabled people under the Equality Act, so you cannot make the distinction.

If you want to be quite proactive about it, then why not reduce the prognosis timeframe and make it as short as possible to take out the concerns about prognosis, and the concerns around whether individuals are going to live longer or could be facilitated access to alternative treatments to prolong life? I do not understand why we are fixated on a six-month prognosis because, as we have seen in other countries, as soon as you pass the legislation on six months, you will have individuals who say, “Why not seven months? Why not five months?” You will have campaigners who will say, “This does not include me and I have been campaigning for this.” There will be pressure to change and Governments will change. There is no guarantee that you can make that the eligibility criteria will be fixed.

[Danny Kruger]

Q I want to give Professor Shakespeare the chance to respond to the point that we have heard. I am interested in whether you recognise that many disabled people—in fact, not just disabled people, but anybody who declines treatment that keeps them alive—would qualify as terminally ill under the terms of the Bill? What protections we could give to prevent that?

Professor Shakespeare: First of all, a terminal illness is defined as a “condition which cannot be reversed by treatment” I know that that does not mean a cure; you are not aiming at a cure—but it says, “cannot be reversed”. Surely that would not include things like HIV and diabetes because they can be reversed. They cannot be cured; they are still there, but they can be reversed with insulin, antiretrovirals or whatever.

I think, yes, terminally ill people are disabled people almost always, but that does not mean that all disabled people are terminally ill. Even if you have a disease or a condition—like Miro does or like other people do—that will probably result in your death eventually, you are not going to die tomorrow or in six months. You may die in 16 years or whatever. It is very difficult to define terminal illness, and that is why six months, I think, is used in this Bill.

Very recently, my aunt died. She was unconscious for the last month or so of having cancer and then she finally died. She would not have been able to express her will and her preference to have assisted dying, even if she wanted it. Therefore, I think six months when you can have capacity, you can anticipate, you know you are going to die but you want to have control in the manner of your death, is more useful than seven days or less, when you might be unconscious and you might not be able to express a will or preference.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Sixth sitting)

Kim Leadbeater Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 30th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q My question is to you, Mr Greenwich. I understand that in New South Wales—and please do correct me if I am wrong—similarly to the Bill we are proposing, you adopted legalised assisted dying for those who are terminally ill and will die within six months, but you also added an additional criterion, which was within 12 months for a neurodegenerative disease such as motor neurone disease. That element is not proposed in our Bill, but we have heard from other witnesses over previous days about that issue. What reflections might you have regarding that, and why did you add that element into the Bill beyond the six months that we are proposing here?

Alex Greenwich: Thank you very much for your question. At the outset, I will just stress that every jurisdiction should legislate the form of voluntary assisted dying that is appropriate to them. In New South Wales, that was six months for a terminal illness, or 12 months if that terminal illness was a neurodegenerative disorder. We had learned from the other schemes in Australia that that was going to be important because of the decline that occurs in neurodegenerative disorders like motor neurone disease, for example. It was because of that that we went down that path.

Professor Blake: I should add that in Queensland, there is no such distinction in life expectation between other diseases and neurodegenerative diseases. Queensland legislation is different: it sets a 12-month period of expected death, and the reason for that approach was in response to feedback from people living with neurodegenerative disease that they felt that they were being put in a different position to people suffering from, or experiencing, other terminal illnesses. The Queensland Parliament took a different approach to address that particular feedback.

Dr Furst: From South Australia’s perspective, we are similar to New South Wales; we have less than six months for all conditions bar neurodegenerative conditions, which is less than 12 months. As a clinician, personally, I think that 12 months for neurodegenerative conditions is really helpful, because—as you have heard—if you are looking at prognosis and trajectories, with things like cancer, a patient will be going along and then often have quite a steep and rapid decline. That six-month prognosis is quite noticeable, but for patients with conditions like motor neurone disease, their decline can be slow and very distressing to them. Also, when trying to balance the prognosis along with getting them through the process, 12 months is really helpful, so if there was any chance, I would be strongly advocating for that.

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

Q Thank you to the witnesses for joining us this morning. I would like to address my comments to Alex Greenwich, if I may, but also come back to Dr Furst and Professor Blake.

It is really valuable for us as a Committee to hear your reflections on the experience of the process of passing this legislation. How did you manage to keep that process patient-centred but also take into account the concerns around the broader societal issues, particularly when it comes to equality and human rights—those really important issues? What was that process like, and what are your reflections on it? Also, Dr Furst and Professor Blake, one thing that I feel really strongly about is having really good training around assisted dying, and end-of-life care and choice. Would you like to make any comments on what that looks like?

Alex Greenwich: Thank you very much for that question. I will take you through a little bit of the journey to voluntary assisted dying in New South Wales, what encouraged action, and then the safeguards that we put in place.

The New South Wales coroner had reported to us that there were a number of really horrible suicides of people with terminal illnesses who felt they had no option—that those were cruel and lonely suicides. That was backed up by paramedics and police who would arrive on site. Myself and my parliamentary colleagues decided, “We can do better, and we can regulate in this space.” Voluntary assisted dying in New South Wales is an important form of suicide prevention. What voluntary assisted dying does, in the model that we legislated, is ensure that a person who has a terminal illness and knows that it is going to be a cruel and painful end of their life is instead directed to a doctor—a doctor who will be able to take them through all of their palliative care options, provide and link them with social supports, and give them the choice to have a death that is better than their illness would otherwise provide.

It has been important to make sure that our legislation is limited to that cohort of people who are terminally ill and know they will have a cruel end of life. Our legislation is not about people with anorexia nervosa. It is not about people with a disability. It is not about people who are feeling a burden. It is about a very limited and narrow cohort of people who know that they are going to have a very cruel and painful end of their life, and want that control to know that they can have a death that is better than what their illness would otherwise provide.

We have ensured that decision-making capacity needs to be enduring. We have ensured that a person cannot be under any form of coercion. We ensured that we had a really strong period of implementation, from the time the Bill was passed to 18 months later, when it came into effect, to make sure that our health system and the various doctors required training.

In New South Wales, the experience of voluntary assisted dying is that it has been a form of suicide prevention, and that it has also been, as I explained earlier, very pro-palliative care. As I reflect on our parliamentary debate, it was also one of the first times that our Parliament had grappled with the concept of death. We were very honest about it, and we were very honest in having to admit that we are all going to die, that there are some people with some terminal illnesses who are going to die in a really cruel and painful way, and that we could provide them with an option of control, peace and respect. We believe, and our annual reports into our legislation indicate, that we have been able to provide that. I am happy to answer any further questions, but I will wrap up on that.

Professor Blake: Given that the Western Australia legislation has been in force rather longer than the other jurisdictions that have been talked about today, we have had the opportunity to reflect upon it—I am speaking here as a lawyer; I assume that is why I have been invited to talk—and that has revealed some of the very good things about the working of the legislation, but also some of the challenges that have emerged.

As Dr Furst has said, the legislation in all Australian jurisdictions varies slightly, but it follows a particular legislative model, and is highly prescriptive. It requires a number of requests and, in Western Australia, assessment by two different practitioners. In Western Australia, there is no judicial double-checking of that process. Although I note that that is contemplated within the UK law, that is not something that we have found to be necessary or even appropriate in Western Australia, and I think that would be the case in other Australian jurisdictions.

One of the issues we have experienced is that there is a struggle to get people to take up the training, whether that be medical practitioners or nurse practitioners. One of the thoughts around that has been the very prescriptive nature of the model, which requires a lot of work on the part of the practitioners. It is worth bearing in mind when looking at your piece of legislation that the more prescriptive it is, the more work it requires on the part of practitioners, and that is a lot of work. We need those people to undergo the training in order that the process is done properly and all the safeguards that are included within the legislation—and they are extensive—are respected. That is something to bear in mind.

We have prescriptive provisions around capacity and voluntariness and lack of coercion. I would add that we also have a requirement around residency. If we are looking at when the legislation has come before a tribunal or judicial body, the only circumstance—in Western Australia, at least—where it has come before the tribunal, which is the State Administrative Tribunal, has been where the practitioner has regarded the patient as not eligible on the grounds of not fulfilling the residency requirements. There has been no other ground on which a matter has been taken to a judicial body.

You asked about the training. That is an essential requirement for practitioners who are involved in making assessments and in the whole process. It is intrinsic to the operation of the Act. The feedback I have heard is aligned with what Dr Furst has said—that no divisions have arisen within the practitioners here, and that those who have chosen to do the training are indeed very valued and very much appreciated by the people who have accessed the scheme.

I will say two more things about the regulation. One is that in the report that has been handed down, the only negative feedback has been about delays. That has been identified as being due to a lack of education among health professionals. One of the recommendations of the report is that education really needs to increase so that people’s journey on VAD is not unnecessarily delayed and, perhaps, their wishes are not able to be granted.

The second thing is on conscientious objectors: 13.7% of applications for VAD in Western Australia from 2023 to 2024 were declined on the basis of conscientious objection. But in Western Australia, unlike some other Australian jurisdictions, if a practitioner declines to become involved in the process, they are required by law to give the patient an information sheet outlining options around voluntary assisted dying. That is actually mandated in the legislation.

I have probably said enough for now, so I will hand over to Chloe.

Dr Furst: I completely agree with Meredith that the training is fundamental. For most jurisdictions, it probably takes a full day. It is often an in-person event followed by an exam, which you have to pass. In South Australia, we had a whole lot of mandatory questions that you actually had to pass to be eligible, to make sure that you were upholding the legislation.

This is so different from anything else in medicine. In any other part of medicine that I practise, if I see a process that I think can be improved—if I see efficiencies that can be made or bits of the system that are not adding to patient care—I can choose to adapt the process as I see fit to give the patient the care that I want to give or that is compatible with what the patient wishes. That is so different from voluntary assisted dying, where, as Meredith said, it is so legislated, down to who can be a witness for various documents. As a doctor, the amount of documentation that is required for voluntary assisted dying is second to nothing. We just do not do that kind of documentation in any other areas of medicine. So it is quite different, and it really does require being quite precise around that documentation and making sure that you are meeting all the timeframes and guidelines. The training is hugely important in terms of the operational component.

There is also the training around end of life and conversations, and how you support the patient and the families. That is a lot harder to teach. That is, I guess, why people will fall into this, and why a large number of palliative care doctors will do it—because it is already second nature to them or they already have the relationship with the patient and they see these conversations as something they are good at and good at facilitating.

So there are two parts of that training that are really important, and then, as Meredith said, there is also the training we need to be giving to the rest of our workforce, and really all health practitioners. A patient might ask the social worker, the orderly or the dietician about assisted dying, and they have to know how they can respond and how they can connect that individual to the right practitioner. That is really important. We have done a lot of work in South Australia, as all the other jurisdictions have, around upskilling the whole workforce, because this is everyone’s role and job.

I also wanted to speak briefly on what we in South Australia call the gag clause. In South Australia and Victoria, we are not allowed to bring up voluntary assisted dying with patients, and that is really, really problematic. From my perspective, it leads to poor provision of care. In medicine, when I am talking to a patient, in every other area, if they needed treatment, I would be obliged, and it would be good practice, to tell them about all the treatment options that are available to them. If someone had cancer, I would want to be telling them about good palliative care, potentially surgery, and radiotherapy and chemotherapy, yet voluntary assisted dying is the one thing we are not allowed to talk about and is taken off the menu. Some people may not know that voluntary assisted dying is available to them. They might be waiting for me as the doctor to bring it up to them. I have brought up every other option for them; why am I not able to talk about voluntary assisted dying? I just think it is really important that we do not stigmatise voluntary assisted dying and that we see it as a valid option for people.

Professor Blake: To add to what Chloe said, in Western Australia practitioners can raise voluntary assisted dying as long as it is in association with other end-of-life choices, but the way the legislation is worded is confusing, so one of the recommendations in the most recent report is that that be removed altogether so that voluntary assisted dying is treated like any other treatment option. As Chloe indicated, the evidence was that treating voluntary assisted dying differently can compromise the whole end-of-life journey, because it interferes with discussion of other end-of-life options. The strong recommendation from the board is that it be removed altogether and that voluntary assisted dying be treated just like any other appropriate treatment option so that the patient has a true choice.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Seventh sitting)

Kim Leadbeater Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 30th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Opher]

It was clause 26, sorry.

Professor Hoyano: Under the Canadian system, the provinces each have a college of physicians and surgeons. However, what has happened is that everyone has worked collaboratively across all 12 jurisdictions, plus the federal Government. We now have the Canadian MAiD—medical assistance in dying—curriculum, which was developed by the Canadian Association of MAiD Assessors and Providers in consultation with experts from across the country. It is providing a comprehensive, bilingual, nationally accredited training programme that is evidence-based and is based on the learning that has happened in Canada since the legislation was first enacted.

There is also a model practice standard for MAiD and a companion document, “Advice to the Profession”, which all the medical colleges have signed up to. It helps practitioners to align their practice with the official guidance and assists health professional regulatory authorities to ensure that the public is protected. Coercion lies at the heart of these documents.

The regulations for the monitoring of medical assistance in dying require—and this is something else that I suggest be changed—that in Canada there has to be an annual report from the federal Government, which is very granular in detail, from right across the country. It happens at least once a year; there was one year in which we had two reports going into all the details. On coercion, we know that in 2023, when they examined the reasons for ineligibility, there were 41 cases across the country in which the physicians determined that the person had not made a voluntary request without external pressure, and it was therefore declined. We need to know is what is happening out there, and I do not think that a report every five years is going to help. We need to enlist all the medical professions involved in signing up to very detailed codes of practice, but we also need the training that Amanda has referred to as essential.

The last point that I would make is that McGill University is launching a national palliative care hub that is available to any practitioner in the country and from which they can receive guidance and support with helping and advising patients who are receiving palliative care. One of the options is, if the patient desires it, how to deal with these requests.

Dr Ward: Now that I have had a look at clause 26, may I answer the Member’s question? I think it is a very well drafted provision, and it is very similar to what we have in Scotland. In particular, I know we are concerned about people being coerced into assisted dying, but internationally it is actually the converse. Some jurisdictions are considering putting provisions in their Bill because family members are trying to put undue pressure on others not to make an assisted dying decision.

On my understanding of the reporting in Kim’s Bill, it is just not a five-year review: the Registrar General, the chief medical officer and the Secretary of State are involved. Again, I commend the Member in charge for the reporting procedures being very robust in the Bill.

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

Q For clarity, Dr Ward, you are right that clause 34 requests that the chief medical officer submits an annual report. You clearly have many years of experience in this subject. For you, what does best practice look like when it comes to assisted dying, end of life choice and end of life care? That is what we are all aiming for in our deliberations. How do we keep it patient-centred?

I notice that you have also spoken a lot about misinformation; how do we tackle that? How do we make sure we are dealing with facts rather than speculation? In particular, how do we provide reassurance to marginalised communities and people with disabilities, who are understandably nervous about this change in the law? When it comes to safeguards and protections, what does best practice look like?

Dr Ward: To take your last point first, we must involve them in the process and have an open dialogue with them. That means not just in the consultation process, when you are considering passing legislation, but when you have your implementation taskforce, on which you must make sure you have representation from across all the stakeholders involved, including people with disabilities and people with terminal illnesses.

I would point to the fact that best practice is about balancing the autonomy, dignity and compassion that the Bill aims to achieve by giving people the option of assisted dying, while also protecting vulnerable people who feel that there are worries and concerns. However, having worked in this area for 13 years and seen people who would really benefit from having this option, and living now in a jurisdiction that has it, I would point out that some of the most vulnerable people I have seen are the terminally ill who want and need this choice. It is about taking a holistic and evidenced-based approach.

You as a Committee will hear from the great and the good across the board, and I am pleased that the Committee is taking account of lived experience, because that is very important to inform the decision-making process. It is about making sure that we are going to the source of evidence and using peer-reviewed data and Government data. Again, as I said earlier, you really need to trust your international colleagues who have gone before you on this. We need to consider what the Bill does versus inaccurate perceptions of or speculations on what it might do. The task here is to consider what is in front of you, not what might happen down the road.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

Q Dr Ward, I think the point about a holistic and evidence-based approach is critical. In the work that you did in the Scottish example you gave, how was the terminal illness definition arrived at? How are you capturing those people who are vulnerable and want to have an assisted death, but might end up limited in their scope and ability to access it?

Dr Ward: Look: assisted dying is the same as any other healthcare choice. It is always going to be limited. We are not going to reach everyone that we absolutely would want to. There are people who want to have this option and this choice who will not qualify under a terminal illness definition, but we have to draw the line somewhere. We looked at international evidence from Commonwealth countries that are very closely linked to Scotland and the UK. We drew the line with the definition that the person has an advanced progressive illness from which they are unable to recover and that will cause their premature death. For us, that demands the support of Members of Parliament in Scotland and the support of the public.

I really stress the fact that each jurisdiction has to legislate according to its own constitutional, societal, legal and cultural considerations, which is what we have done in Scotland. That is the definition that is working for us now. Previously, there were more liberal attempts that did not gain the support of the House. We believe that we have arrived at a situation that is very similar to the definition of terminal illness here in Westminster, and that is both safe and compassionate but also draws the line so that people who should not be able to access this do not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

Q It is great to hear about the case for common law over the Human Rights Act. Yesterday we heard about parliamentary sovereignty. This is a tremendous process we are having here.

Professor Hoyano said that the person in the street would not see the difference between a patient requesting to die by the withdrawal of treatment versus the active administration of fatal drugs, whereas I think you said, Professor Owen, that you did see a profound difference between that decision on the part of the patient and also, presumably, the act on the part of the medical professional, in the case of either the withdrawal of treatment or the administration of fatal medication. You said that you would be happy to draw that out; could you do so?

Professor Owen: Yes. I am happy to try now, but also to do it further with some written submissions if that would be helpful, because it is such an important point. First, for the man on the street, or the person on the bus, one thing to remember—this comes out in the public opinion polling—is that when you ask about assisted dying, some people think that that is access to palliative care. There is a degree of misconceptions that are out there in the public that are important to bear in mind.

On the distinction between the decision around the refusal of life-sustaining treatment and the decision regarding assisted dying, what are the similarities? Well, they are both about life and death. What are the differences? One is a refusal; one is a request. One is traditionally considered to be about bodily integrity—it is the so-called shield of the person, or the patient, against the intervention on the body that is being made by the medical profession. You are giving the patient an important right, which is a shield-like right. That contrasts with a request for assisted dying, which is a request. You are involving other people in an act that is an act of ending one’s life. That is not something that the medical profession has been comfortable with, going back thousands of years.

So you can discern a number of differences. Could you reduce those differences to one thing and one thing only, and be particularly precise about it? Probably not. I think you are talking about differences that cluster and group, and which we overall accept as a difference of kind.

The other issue here that is important is intention. When you are assessing somebody’s decision to refuse a life-sustaining treatment, the doctor there does not have the intention to end a person’s life. That would be a concerning intention were it there—and sometimes it is looked for, actually, if it is disputed. But of course, when a doctor is involved with a process where somebody is seeking assistance in the ending of their life, it is quite difficult to say that the doctor does not have an intention to end life.

One could go on with a discussion of the differences, but the similarity is that we are talking about life and death.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Q This has been an incredibly helpful panel, so thank you for all your expertise.

Let me come back to the content of the Bill, and to some of your points, Professor Owen. In terms of capacity and coercion, I think we are absolutely having these really important conversations. What concerns me a little bit, though, is whether we are saying we are not confident that two doctors, potentially a psychiatrist and an oncologist, and a judge can make assessments of capacity and coercion between them. What does that mean for things that are happening at the moment? We have talked about the withdrawal of end of life treatment and those things; those assessments must be being done now, all the time, but at the moment there is no legal framework around that. Surely, putting a legal framework around that and having all those multidisciplinary people involved has got to be a positive thing. Professor Hoyano, I would appreciate your thoughts on that.

Professor Hoyano: As I say, whereas I completely respect Professor Owen’s expertise in this as a psychiatrist, for me as a lawyer the question of capacity is a yes or no, necessarily. But capacity is always determined by the Court of Protection in respect of the decision that must be made by the person concerned: do they have the capacity to do it?

When we are talking about a determination of capacity, and also about coercion—which of course is part of capacity in a sense, because capacity is the autonomy of decision making—you are going to be having a very focused inquiry. It is not an inquiry into whether a person has capacity to manage their financial affairs. I probably do not have that capacity, but on something like this I would have capacity. It is important to recognise that it is a yes or no question, which the law has to draw and does draw, depending on the expertise of psychiatrists like Professor Owen, but also forming its own judgment from its own experience, which is why I think the Court of Protection really is the place where this should be.

There is one aspect of the Bill that worries me a lot, and that is the number of people who will be excluded by the provision that the medication must be self-administered. This would mean that Tony Nicklinson, who went all the way to the House of Lords to try to get the right to die, could not have it under this Bill, because he was paralysed. He was a tetraplegic, basically—he was paralysed from the neck down, with limited movement of his head, from a stroke. He lived for seven years with that condition and he would not have been able to self-administer. In fact, when he was denied by the House of Lords—anyone who has seen the Channel 4 programme will have watched him wail in despair—he refused all nutrition and hydration from that point until he died. That was the death he did not want, and I think we need to recognise that there are problems like that. In 2023 in Canada, across the entire country, only five patients opted to self-administer the medication—only five. Even when patients were capable of doing it, they wanted the doctor to do it instead, so let us remember that as well, please.

Dr Ward: Can I make a quick point about self-administration? This is something that in Scotland we looked into in great detail. In Scotland, we chose self-administration specifically because it does not just include ingestion or swallowing. There is a range of ways in which you can self-administer the medication, and I am happy to provide that information to the Committee if that would be helpful.

[Lewis Atkinson]

Q Professor Owen, can I probe a little more something that you raised before—the interaction of potential impairment, potential family dynamics and so on in a way that is not malign, but that you think is a consideration? We have heard some evidence in the course of this week about whether there would be any benefit from a more multidisciplinary approach that could make a more rounded, psychosocial assessment of someone’s situation. That would be less about the clear test of whether there is capacity under the Mental Capacity Act and more about the wider considerations of those interactions. I just wonder whether the inclusion of, say, social workers or mental health professionals as part of a multidisciplinary approach would give you any reassurance on those points that you made.

Professor Owen: Good question. On the point about that interaction issue, it is not just me picking it up; it is the courts and the Court of Protection particularly. If you are interested, it is footnote (11) in the written submission from the Complex Life and Death Decisions group. The point that you make is well taken from my point of view. You have two doctors, essentially, doing the assessment. Some doctors can be very good at assessing social circumstances; some are not so good. I think it would be preferable to try to get a law that gets sight of social circumstances; one way of doing that may be to insert a requirement that a suitably experienced social worker is involved, so that there is some sensitivity to those contextual, relational, interpersonal effects, which, as I know you are aware, can be very subtle. A lot of these things are extremely difficult to pick up. They are easy to miss and, even when you are aware of them, there can be dilemmas about what to do with them.

Professor Hoyano: Might I add a postscript to that? A model that we could consider in this context is CAFCASS—the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service—in the family courts. It is a body of experts—civil servants, in effect—but they are independent and they are accustomed to dealing with specific context with social workers, for example. They investigate what should happen to a child in public law or private law proceedings. It occurs to me that something like that—a report from an equivalent body to the solicitor’s office, which I mentioned before—could be a very good way of building that in, because I completely agree that social workers are likely to be more professionally attuned, by virtue of their training and experience, to looking at the wider context.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Opher]

Certainly.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Q We have heard a lot from witnesses this week about safeguarding. That is something I am keen to pursue. The Bill has a significant number of safeguards already, but is there anything else that you think we could add? I think all on the Bill Committee are interested in hearing such ideas. In particular, we are thinking about how we can protect people, such as people from disadvantaged backgrounds, older people—Dr Richards, I think you have experience of working with older people—people from a range of different backgrounds, and people with disabilities, so that we keep the Bill very much focused on the people it is designed to help, who are terminally ill people with less than six months to live, while addressing more of the broader concerns about some of the inequalities in society.

Dr Richards: In covid, we did research in care homes, and there was real concern about “do not resuscitate” orders and emergency care plans that were blanketed across the care homes. Care home staff were traumatised by that, so there are real issues. We know that there are real issues day to day in how people are treated within the NHS. I think it is unconscious—I do not think people are intending it—but we know that people are treated differently and that different things are done. That is partly why we think a system outside that would protect them, because then you are not within the healthcare team that is treating you and giving you advice about such things, whereas if you are having to opt into a system where you have to do something more, they will not feel like it. That does not happen in the hospital. It is about trust.

One of the issues in Switzerland—I must just add, the same Swiss system is being adopted in Germany and Austria, which already has a panel—is that they are trying to protect these people by keeping it one step removed, so that people do not feel that they are trying to be persuaded to an assisted death. Most hospitals in Switzerland will not allow assisted dying to occur, because they do not want a lack of trust in their patient group. Instead, they will sometimes allow the right-to-die associations in to do this and there are just a few hospitals that allow their staff to do it. It is all about trust.

[Kim Leadbeater]

That is really helpful.

Dr Richards: I do not think there is any evidence that there is a loss of trust in doctors post legalisation—I just wanted to add that.

As I said in response to the earlier question, this is a categorically new thing that would be coming into society, which would cause cultural change in how we approach, think about and anticipate dying. It is a big deal—I know you all know that. Accompanying it, therefore, there needs to be really sensitive information delivery that is appropriate across society and that will alert people to this. In particular, if you are going to have a system where doctors are not allowed to raise it with patients, people need to know about it. That is one thing.

Reducing people’s fears is also important. I mean, there are so many misconceptions about assisted dying, even among people who have spent quite a lot of time reading about it and researching it. It is a very simple thing, but the discourse in society has been going on for so long that there is a lot of misunderstanding.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Q Can you give an example? What do you mean by that?

Dr Richards: Misunderstandings of what it is? Fundamentally, that it is not based on the principle of autonomy and that it is something that can be done to you, without your consent. You would not want the general public to think that. At a very basic level, it is understanding that assisted dying—the very phenomenon that that term encapsulates—is a phenomenon that starts with the patient. It is a request made by the patient because of their subjective assessment of their quality of life as they are dying. At a very fundamental level, you would want to communicate that to the public. It is a huge piece of work to have to create an informational context that is variegated according to the starting position of people’s knowledge base around it, and to bring in something that does not scare the public and so they see it as something that can be positive.

In jurisdictions that have legalised, even post-legalisation there continue to be elements that resist it. However, you start to see positive stories of the kind of ceremonial aspects that can come when you can time death. There is a whole cultural piece around new rites—new rites around dying that are being created when people choose to have an assisted death, and the new dying time or space that is opened up there, as well as the intentional actions that can happen from people’s social groups. Post-legalisation, it is not just fear—I think you get a balance of stories coming through—but it is something that you need to attend to.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Thank you.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Q I have a very quick question. Professor Preston, you talked about nurses. Again, feeding into this multidisciplinary approach, one thing I am really clear about is that we must have the best training in the world around those end-of-life conversations and end-of-life choice. Do you have any thoughts about what that training could look like or what the important components of that would be? I am interested to know.

Professor Preston: We have heard lots of evidence about training schemes around the world. To be honest, I think they are still developing, but we can look at the good elements of those and at what has and has not been evaluated. We can do it almost like action research, where you are learning as you go, and we can improve the training as we go.

Most people do not die under palliative care. This Bill will affect general care; it will affect specialist care, but not in palliative care. We need to train those people as well, because they will be having a lot of these conversations. We are doing that training now, which is about how we talk to someone in a compassionate way. How do you help people to understand that they can be involved in the decision making? What might the goals of care for you be, and what might a goals-of-care conversation look like?

We have lots of this training already. Palliative care has huge expertise in this with advanced care planning and the rest of it, so it is about getting some of that incorporated. It is not just about saying, “This is what an assisted death would look like. This is how it would process.” It must be more than that, and we need to help people to explore their end-of-life choices. How do you want to die? Do you want to die at home? Do you want the cat on the bed? It is about all those things that are really important to people, but we must have that conversation and explore them, and it is quite hard to get clinicians to have those conversations. There will be a special group of people who can manage this; they will need training and support.

[The Chair]

I thank the witnesses on behalf of the Committee. We will suspend until 3 pm, which gives us six minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Opher]

And he was having excellent palliative care, so what was in his mind, do you think? Why did he decide on that option?

Liz Reed: He knew he was dying. He was diagnosed in October 2022. Just to be clear, in the period before his health started to really deteriorate, he had a great time. He went fishing, he went to the beach—it was like an advert for Australia, how great his time was. He quit his job, he was with his young sons, and he had a lovely time. But his treatment stopped working. He had had every treatment and, even though he was on the pathway and had started the voluntary assisted dying process, he was still having immunotherapy. He wanted to live. His family wanted him to live. But he got to the point where he knew he was absolutely not going to live, and that it was a matter of time. He said that he was afraid not of dying, but of dying in an awful way. He was worried his lungs were filling up with fluid. He thought he might have a heart attack. He was afraid of that happening; he was not afraid of dying. He was not depressed but he knew what was coming. He felt, in his own words, “I’m just sitting here waiting to die.”

He had had experience of a friend whose wife had died, and she got so bad that her young son could not visit her any more because it was too frightening for him. My brother’s children will remember who he was: this big, 6-foot-6, rugby-playing, fun dad. He got to choose: “Actually, I’m ill enough, I’m frightened of what might come down, which I know is going to happen anyway, and I choose now.”

[Kim Leadbeater]

Q Thank you to the three of you for coming here this afternoon and telling your stories. I know how hard it is to tell your story over and over again. I think it is important to reflect on the fact that we have had a lot of talk this week about amendments, clauses and various other technical details, but this is the reality of the subject. Thank you so much for sharing your stories.

Liz and Julie, I am interested to know whether you think any aspects of the processes that you went through in Australia and in Spain could have been done better or improved. Is there anything from your experiences that we could learn from to enhance what we are trying to do here?

I also have a question for all three of you—and Pat, goodness me, to come here and tell your story after everything you have been through is unbelievably brave, so thank you. What impact did these different types of death have on your grief and on bereavement? We are talking about different types of death, so I think it will be helpful to think what that looks like for people.

Julie Thienpont: It is a very good question, because I think it did impact my grief. There is not anything that I would change, for definite, about that, but I think I mentioned that I had not tried to talk Guy out of it the first time around, but I did say, “Don’t be so hasty, because you’re not as sick as you could be.” He was still getting up and dressed every day and managing pain, so we had that discussion. On the only day that I ever knew him to stay in bed a little bit longer, I knew he was thinking about phoning to say that he was ready, and he called me to him and said, “Come and sit with me. I want to ask you two things.” The main one relevant to this is: “Don’t try and talk me out of it this time. I’ve made the decision. Don’t try and talk me out of it, because I don’t want you to be impacted in that way.” The second one was to “be strong”.

Both those things have impacted my grief, because I was so strong for 12 whole months and I just thought, “Yes, we’ve gone through that. It’s been great, and”—not “great”. Sorry, I am using the wrong terminology, but for me, it was so good to know that he died so peacefully and he was at peace with himself. That happened and I thought, “Right, now I’ve got to do the ‘be strong’ bit,” so I did that. I did want to talk him out of it again, but I did not, and I was very strong, and then all of a sudden, one day, grief did start to creep in, obviously. Suddenly I thought, “Hang on, he’s not coming back.” That is a normal grieving process, but it held off a little while.

The pathway that the grief I experienced took was that every day I had a different memory of us sitting somewhere, being somewhere or doing something. During the last months that we had together, knowing that he was going to die—sorry to sound like a bit of a romantic—our love intensified so much. You know that everything you do, it is probably going to be the last time you do it. It is almost like an unbreakable bond between you: you are both in this situation together and you are going to get through it, you are going to be strong, and you are going to be there for each other. I think that carried me so far, because those four months that he lived were the best four months, in the sense of our closeness and how supportive and caring we were for each other. It makes me smile now. When I think of his passing, I smile. Yes, I do get upset and I miss him a big lot, but I smile because everything worked out the way he wanted it to.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Thank you so much.

Pat Malone: My experience with my father was entirely different. My daughter, who was seven at the time, reminded me recently, when I was putting my thoughts together for this, that in his last weeks she had visited him, and I had taken her into a side room and told her not to expect to see the grandpa that she knew, because he was very, very ill and he did not look anything like she would expect. She said she was very thankful that I did that, because she was stunned and shocked when she saw him. He was like a 1,000-year-old corpse, he was moving, and his eyes were yellow, and that is how she remembers him—she does not remember any of the good times. My sister, who lived close by, was with him most of the time, and she just sat by his bed and prayed for his heart to stop.

We were all shell-shocked when he did finally die. As I say, that informed the decisions that were made about suicide by my sister and brother. Had he been a farm animal, we would have been prosecuted for causing unnecessary suffering, but he was a man so he was not entitled to that sort of consideration. I remember him in that horrible ward breathing his last. The only time he moved in the last days was to cough up blood. For a man who had asked to be relieved of that burden, who had asked for an act of mercy, a week before, and it had been denied him—I cannot understand how anybody would deny a dying man a deliverance.

When my brother died, he and my sister-in-law had been together since they were 11 years old. He was only 53, so they had already known each other for 40 years. She had shared his suffering while he was being driven around the country looking for diagnoses and, ultimately, looking for doctors who would help him commit suicide. His weight had gone from 18 stone to 8 stone, and he was bright yellow as well. He was suffering all the time and she was suffering with him. She was relieved as well as grieving when he actually died—and then the police were at the door. The investigation went on until his inquest eight months later. The police were as helpful and sensitive as they could possibly be. Vicky got the impression that they wanted her to give the wrong answer—when they said, “Did you know what he was going to do?” she said, “Yes, I did”; to “Could you have stopped him?” she said, “Yes, he was weak as a kitten”; and to “Could you have resuscitated him?” she said “Yes,” because she had had some nursing training, and so on—and with every answer they just collapsed a little bit more.

Ultimately, at the inquest there was an anomaly in his suicide note. It was written in two different colours of ink, and the police investigated whether it could have been written at different times, possibly by different people. Giving evidence at his inquest, the police said that they thought his pen had run out—there was a squiggle at the top where it changed from black to blue—and they said that they were not proceeding with any idea that there had been positive involvement in his suicide.

I have a note of the transcript of what the coroner said, which reads: “I don’t want to make any more of this than I absolutely have to. I simply record therefore that Michael Malone took his own life. He did so quite deliberately and having made appropriate preparations, and so it’s not a case of my saying that he did so while the balance of his mind was disturbed, because it clearly was not. It was a decision that he took and I have every sympathy with that decision in so far as a coroner is allowed to say that.”

The police were very sympathetic. The coroner was very sympathetic. Danny Kruger is very sympathetic. But sympathy only goes so far, and I am glad that this Committee is now looking at exactly the people who matter first in this issue, who cannot be here to talk for themselves.

Liz Reed: In answer to the first point, about anything we would change or do differently, I think actually my brother’s case was dealt with really well and there were checks and balances along the whole way: “Does he meet the eligibility criteria?”—obviously—“but also, does he want to?” His wife was involved in the process with him, and he was checked constantly. A doctor administered for him, and he had met him already. He knew him and had a rapport with him. He had a few jokes with him at the end. So from that perspective, I do not think so. It is slightly different in Australia, in that it does not have to have a High Court judge, so the process feels a bit more streamlined than it is here, and maybe the access would be slightly different because of that.

In terms of the grief, I think anyone that knows someone who has been through a terminal illness knows that there is a level of anticipatory grief that comes with that—the waking up every morning thinking, “Has it been tonight? What happens next? What’s today?” Because when someone is in the final stages of their life, which my brother was, there is always something every day: “Oh, he’s got to have fluid drained from his heart today,” or, “Oh, this has happened.” There is always something, so that grief starts coming on before the person has even died.

The day my brother died we sat outside in the courtyard and had a glass of champagne. He chose a Bob Dylan song that he wanted to die to. It was extremely peaceful. It was seconds. And he got to say all the things, have all the conversations, speak to our parents—that sort of real American “closure”. That is what he got, and we were not sitting around thinking, “I wish I’d said this. I missed it,” or, “I was off doing something with the kids.” We were all there: my mum, my dad, me, his wife. We sat there and held his hand—and what a gift.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

Q Thank you all for coming today and for sharing these really personal recollections. I have one question, but to both Liz and Julie, if that is okay. According to the notes that I have here—apologies if I have got this wrong—in both your brother’s situation and your husband’s situation, it was administered by the doctor. The Bill proposes that the person who has made the choice about ending their life should self-administer a solution. I am really sorry if this causes you any distress, but, on reflection, do you think that a self-administration regime would have made a difference?

Liz Reed: I do not think so, no. I do not think it would have changed his mind. I am someone who is real squeamish, so I probably would not want to, because of how I feel about all that kind of stuff, but it would not have changed anything for him—no, absolutely not. But I think there is a comfort in having a doctor there administering that, “This is going to go as it should,” and there is a calm that comes with that.

Julie Thienpont: Guy being intensely private, as I mentioned before, he would have preferred less people around him at the time. There were two nurses, the family doctor and the administering doctor. They prepared the scene and put the drips in—they had to put one in each arm—and they had to be there in order to witness the whole thing. He would have preferred to have been able to do it himself, but I do not think the fact that it was administered by somebody else impacted in a negative way for him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse]

Q Julie, you said that you got to a point where Guy said to you that he had made his mind up. Had he made his mind up after conversations with doctors about what his options were?

Julie Thienpont: No. He made up his mind long before he was even sick. He felt that his mother had quite a traumatic passing, and said that she expressed a view that, had it been an option, she would have taken it. He had said from then, “That is the way I want to die. I want to die that way. I don’t want to be lingering in a bed, whether I am in pain or not. I don’t want that to happen.” That may not be something that I would choose, but that was his absolute choice—I have no doubt whatsoever. He said that to the team who had been looking after him when he first broached the subject, and I think they first of all thought he was not terribly serious. Then, when they realised he was, he said, “It’s my life, it’s my death—I want to choose.” I think that is what it is all about: allowing people that option to choose.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Q I wonder if you have been on your own journeys around your personal views on assisted dying and choice at the end of life. I have spoken to lots and lots of people about this, and anybody who has had experiences similar to yours are very clear that the law needs to change. People who have not been as close to this issue as you have often hold a different view.

Prior to your personal experience, you might have had a different view or friends and family who had different views. For me, speaking to people who have had the experiences you have had, it becomes very clear that we have problems with the law as it stands, or the lack of the law as it stands. Would anybody like to share their own journey about that?

Pat Malone: From my standpoint, I did not give it a lot of thought until it started impacting on the family. But I understood exactly why my sister and my brother committed suicide. I would hope that this Bill could be enacted when my time comes.

Liz Reed: I had not given it a huge amount of thought; I am relatively young. I suppose if I was asked at the time I would have said, “Yes, sounds fine,” but I think I had also grossly misunderstood what it would mean for someone to go to Dignitas. There is a flippant comment that goes around—I can remember my dad saying it: “Oh, I’ll just go to Switzerland.” It is just not that easy. People I know and have met, like Pat, have had family members go to Dignitas, and it is actually a deeply traumatising experience. People’s lives are cut much shorter, they cannot enjoy their time and so on. I absolutely agree that I had not given it much thought.

I remember, on the day my brother died, getting back to where we were staying; I sat there and thought, “What would have happened to him?” I wrote to my MP, to say, “Hello, I am just wondering what would have happened, out of interest.” That is how I got involved. Had he been here, what would have happened to him and how long would he have had to limp on? You hear enough stories of people begging to die at the end of their lives, and I am really thankful that he did not have to.

[The Chair]

May I offer all three of you the collective condolences of everybody on the Committee? I thank you for your bravery in attending today and for speaking to us. Thank you very much.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

Q I take that on board fully, so thank you for those helpful comments. In terms of capacity assessment, point 12 in the feedback and the written evidence from the Royal College of Psychiatrists mentions having multiple opportunities to assess capacity. To provide reassurance on that, those are in the Bill—I think there are four or five opportunities to assess capacity.

My question relates to point 15 in your written evidence, around the Human Tissue Authority. This is a model I looked at in terms of the decision making on coercion and capacity around people involved in organ donation. Can you tell me a little about that, and whether you think that there are parallels? It is a very serious decision, so we are in that territory. This is about what that looks like and what the role of psychiatrists is. We have talked a little about this already, but if we were to take this multidisciplinary approach, which I think is really powerful, what should the role of psychiatrists be?

Dr Price: On the role of an oversight group, one of the risks with individual practitioners doing these sorts of assessments is that they may do it once or twice in their career. What we know is likely to happen is that a smaller number of practitioners will do lots of assessments and build up individual expertise. However, it might be that a particular practitioner does this only for a patient who they know, or only a few times. Therefore, in terms of building up through repetition the sort of expertise that somebody such as me might have in the mental healthcare of an older person—thousands of patients over a couple of decades—an external group that understands the standards and the process should be able to scrutinise things at the time.

There are a number of bodies that do that not just for organ donation, but across lots of different services. We have them for liaison psychiatry, and they might have them for electroconvulsive therapy services, for example. They are not extraordinary or unusual, but they ensure that there is some consistency and reliability and that the assessments are of a standard. Scrutinising assessments after somebody has completed the process is useful for everybody who comes afterwards; it may not ensure that the quality was there for that individual. That would be the rationale for that sort of approach. Forgive me, but would you ask me the second part of your question again?

[Kim Leadbeater]

Q I think you have answered it, but it was whether there was any specific detail about the Human Tissue Authority, how it operates and what that looks like.

Dr Price: I do not have lots of individual experience with that group, because I do not work within a specific service. But it is an example of a model that is in operation, and hopefully I have described the sorts of characteristics and why they are there.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

Q My question is directed to Dr Mulholland. Thank you to the Royal College of General Practitioners for the helpful written evidence. I want to pick up on something in it, which is summarised in paragraph 6 but gone into in more detail in paragraph 7, and that is around the refusal of practitioners to engage in the assisted dying process. I note the wording that has been used by the Royal College, which is that GPs and any other healthcare professionals can refuse “on any ground”. That is distinct from the Abortion Act 1967, which in section 4(1) sets out that it can be a conscientious objection. Can you explain why you have decided to take what appears to be a broader expansion of that definition, and why you have chosen that particular wording?

Dr Mulholland: We are aware that we have a range of views in RCGP across general practitioners. Some of them have very strong views for or against based on moral grounds, and some of those are based on religious grounds—traditional conscientious objection grounds. But others do not want to take part in assisted dying just because they do not want to; they do not feel it is part of what being a GP is, or part of what they trained for.

In discussion with colleagues today, someone shared with me that for 35 years they have spent their time trying to extend the life of patients—that has been our role—and to help them towards the end of life. It is a philosophical change if they start to think about whether the patient’s life should end earlier. There are some colleagues who may decide that for those reasons, they do not want to take part in this. There will be others who very definitely do. We have that range, so we feel that a doctor or a health professional should have the right not to take part on any ground, and that should be protected—they should not feel the obligation to do something that they do not feel is within their wishes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

Q I will stay in the same territory, if I can. The Bill includes, very clearly, an opt-in model for doctors. I took that from the BMA, which was very clear on that, and I think it is very important. My slight concern, on which I would like you to expand, is about the removal of assisted dying from the holistic approach to end-of-life care and conversations that GPs have all the time—as do other healthcare professionals, including nurses, as we have heard this week. Where this works well in other jurisdictions is where it is integrated and where we talk about palliative care, we talk about decision making and we talk about choices. I would appreciate your thoughts on that concern.

On capacity, just to reflect on the previous panel, my view is that psychiatric assessment would not be necessary in every case. We have heard from three families this afternoon; we can probably all agree that there was a clear wish from those individuals that this was the choice they wanted to make. I agree with the colleague who said that there will be a percentage of people; that is why I think referral to a psychiatrist is important in those cases. Have you any more thoughts on that, Dr Mulholland?

Dr Mulholland: As GPs, yes, holistic care is what we do—whole-person, biopsychosocial care. If we got into an end-of-life discussion with a patient and they expressed a wish to go through a route of assisted dying, should that be legal, that might still be part of a discussion that we would have with them. It is the active part of the process. The BMA referred to the word “refer”—referring to a colleague, for those who did not want to do it. We agree that signposting is a better process.

We would not want to be out of the patient’s life. It is very difficult to be out of a patient’s life, but it may be that we are not part of that particular aspect of their care. It is the same when we refer to surgeons and hospitals; they have an episode of care elsewhere. This would be another episode that someone might be undertaking for that person. We will still have the families that we are part of; we will still be caring for them as well. We do not see them leaving general practice or general practitioners, but the assisted dying part of their health journey, or death journey, would perhaps be outside some people’s experience or expertise. You would need experts and people trained in it to be doing it, and not necessarily every GP.

Dr Price: No matter what somebody’s reason is for entering the process or what the outcome is, we are very clear that anybody should be able to access really good evidence-based care so that this should not in any way derail, deflect or make people not think about really good care. People should get really thorough assessments, have the right professionals involved in their care and have treatment where they need it and would benefit from it. All the quality that we have and all the guidelines that we work to should still be adhered to. We should still be providing all of the other good-quality care that we can. It is important not to bypass that and not to take shortcuts because they have made that decision.

[The Chair]

There are three people left who want to ask questions, so can I beg for brevity?

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Eighth sitting)

Kim Leadbeater Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Thank you. I call Kim Leadbeater.

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

Further to those points of order, Ms McVey. I take on board people’s comments. There’s no two ways about it; this is a considerable amount of work for members of the Bill Committee to undertake. As has been alluded to, there are a wide range of amendments being proposed. The job of the Committee is to take evidence, look at those amendments, discuss and debate them, and then vote accordingly. That is the process that we are all here to undertake.

[The Chair]

Thank you. Let us start.

Clause 1

Assisted dying

[Kim Leadbeater]

I beg to move amendment 178, in clause 1, page 1, line 3, after “person” insert “in England or Wales”.

This amendment provides that only persons in England or Wales may be provided with assistance in accordance with the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 179, in clause 1, page 1, line 13, after “provided” insert “in England or Wales”.

This amendment limits the assistance that may be provided in accordance with the Bill to assistance in England or Wales.

Amendment 180, in clause 1, page 1, line 20, at end insert—

“(3) The steps to be taken under sections 5, 7, 8 and 13 must be taken—

(a) when the terminally ill person is in England or Wales, and

(b) in the case of the steps under sections 7 and 8, by persons in England or Wales.”

This amendment provides that steps under clauses 5, 7, 8 and 13 must be taken by and in respect of persons in England or Wales.

Amendment 182, in clause 4, page 2, line 21, after “person” insert “in England or Wales”.

This amendment limits subsection (3) to cases where the person is in England or Wales.

Amendment 193, in clause 7, page 4, line 8, at end insert—

“(ca) is in England and Wales,”.

This amendment, which is consequential on Amendment 178, provides that the coordinating doctor must ascertain whether, in their opinion, the person who made the first declaration is in England and Wales.

[Kim Leadbeater]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey, in this very important stage in the consideration and detailed scrutiny of the Bill.

We are discussing assisted dying for terminally ill adults who have a clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life, and who have not been subjected to coercion or pressure from anybody else to do so. These are very serious matters and deserve serious consideration, which is why I was determined that this Bill should have an unprecedented level of scrutiny. We have heard from a range of over 50 witnesses with differing views on the Bill and have received written evidence from many, many more.

I am grateful to everyone who has contributed in such a thoughtful and constructive way. It has been widely remarked—and I wholeheartedly agree—that the Second Reading debate on 29 November last year, when the House approved the principle of the Bill by a majority of 55, showed Parliament at its best. I hope and believe that this Committee, as it goes through the Bill line by line, will do so in the same considered, respectful and measured manner.

[Danny Kruger]

I completely endorse that last point made by the hon. Lady. Does she remember how many Members on Second Reading—including, I think, herself—made reference to the judicial stage of the process and specifically to the High Court judge? Over 60 colleagues have stated on the record that they voted for the Bill on Second Reading because of that safeguard. Does she acknowledge that point?

[Kim Leadbeater]

I do acknowledge that point—absolutely, as I have acknowledged, the role of a High Court judge is really important in this process. That role will remain with the amendment I have tabled. It will also take account of the very clear evidence we received during the oral evidence sessions from psychiatrists, social workers and other professionals who feel that they have an important role to play in this process. Indeed, I heard the hon. Gentleman say he agreed with that on the radio this morning. It is very important that we hear from those experts. There is no point in having witnesses if we do not listen to what they have to say.

[The Chair]

Order. I remind Members that they should keep to the amendments being debated.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Thank you, Ms McVey.

I hope and believe that the Committee will take the same considered, respectful approach that we have taken previously. We have been asked by the House to look at where the Bill can be improved and to amend it, so that Parliament can be presented with a piece of legislation that is robust and workable in order to meet the objectives it is designed to achieve. Most—if not all—the amendments tabled in my name, have been drafted with the help of parliamentary counsel and officials in both the Department of Health and Social Care and the Ministry of Justice. The Government are committed to making the Bill workable and operable, while maintaining a position of neutrality.

I am grateful for the tremendous hard work that has gone into this to make a well-drafted Bill even better. I know the Ministers on the Committee, although remaining neutral, will be here to explain, where necessary, why some drafting amendments were needed to meet their duty to the statute book. There is an old adage that says too many cooks spoil the broth. That may not exactly be parliamentary language, but we will have to bear it in mind as we go along. Over 300 amendments have been tabled—most of them with the intention of improving and strengthening the Bill. I thank all MPs, whether members of the Committee or not, for the time and effort they have put in.

We have a responsibility to maintain the integrity and coherence of the Bill as a whole, so it is evident that we will not be able to accept all amendments. Indeed, we may find ourselves rejecting amendments that sound entirely reasonable in themselves and that undoubtedly come from a good place, but that are perhaps better addressed elsewhere in the drafting. Others might have unintended consequences or create a degree of ambiguity or uncertainty that could undermine the legal authority of the legislation. That might be very good for the pockets of lawyers, but it does not make for good law.

[The Chair]

Order. I remind the Member that although a brief introduction is acceptable, we should be talking to the amendments in this group.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Absolutely, Ms McVey—thank you for allowing me to make some introductory comments.

Amendments 178 to 180, 182 and 193 simply clarify that only persons in England and Wales may be provided with assistance in accordance with the Act, and only medical practitioners in England and Wales can carry out the required roles at each stage of the process. Hopefully, this is a nice straightforward one to get us started.

[The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley for her introductory comments. The Government will continue to remain neutral on the Bill and do not hold a position on assisted dying. I want to make it clear that I, along with the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green, are speaking in Committee not as Members of Parliament, but as Government Ministers responsible for ensuring that the Bill, if passed, is effective, legally robust and workable.

To that end, we have been working closely with the hon. Member for Spen Valley and, where changes have been mutually agreed on by herself and the Government, we will offer a technical, factual explanation for the amendments. Therefore, I will not be offering up a Government view on the merits of any proposed changes put forward by other Members, but I will make brief remarks on an amendment’s legal and practical impact to assist Members in undertaking line-by-line scrutiny.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Olney]

Yes, that is exactly what I am aiming to do. The hon. Member makes an excellent point. There is a wide variety of views on this, but in actual fact, much as I do not wish to question Professor Sir Chris Whitty, and I acknowledge his seniority as the chief medical officer, he was very much the outlier on this. Everybody else who gave evidence on the sufficiency of the Mental Capacity Act to determine someone’s capability to make this decision for themselves cast doubt on the idea that the Mental Capacity Act was the right way of doing it.

[Kim Leadbeater]

That is not quite accurate. I think we did have other witnesses who absolutely said that they had confidence in the Mental Capacity Act, and I will speak about them in this debate.

[Sarah Olney]

I look forward to the hon. Lady’s further comments, but as I said, the psychiatrists were very clear that they did not believe that this was a sufficient safeguard, and we should acknowledge that.

I was unable to put my question to Alex Ruck Keene KC during the oral evidence session, but he kindly agreed to give further evidence in writing in response to a letter I sent to him later that day. That exchange of letters has been published as written evidence. It was his position that, in actual fact, Professor Sir Chris Whitty misinterpreted the Mental Capacity Act when he gave evidence. There is no such requirement in the Mental Capacity Act that states that the more serious the decision, the greater the level of capacity that someone needs to have. Mr Ruck Keene’s view is that that was the common law prior to the Mental Capacity Act coming into force, whereas in actual fact the Mental Capacity Act does not require that the more serious the decision, the more capacity someone needs to be judged to have.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I have concerns about public confidence in the Bill without that additional safeguard, as this is such a consequential decision, but of course any advance directive would be predicated on having gone through those two stages first before capacity is lost. I feel that on this occasion additional tightening is necessary so that the public can be confident that a robust process has been gone through.

The MCA is a tried and tested piece of legislation used by practitioners up and down the country. The hon. Member for Stroud uses it every day in his practice; I have to say that I did not, but I was not consenting patients for surgery every day. Every time I did so, however, I had those conversations. Capacity lies on a spectrum: if I am doing major abdominal surgery, the level of capacity required to make a decision will be much greater than if I am removing a small bump or lump on an arm.

As well as having been tried and tested by medical practitioners, the MCA has been tested in the courts, as the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge said. It has been right up to the highest court in this land, it has been robustly tested and it has been found to be good legislation. The risk we now face is that it will be replaced not only with a new legal concept, but with an entirely different process for assessing capacity in this setting. Although there may be good intentions to improve the system, that will only add to the folly of it and overcomplicate the issue.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I am sorry that it has taken me a while to find the relevant provision of the Bill. The discussion on the advance directive is a really interesting one, and I am glad that we are having it. Is the hon. Member reassured that clause 18(4) is very clear that on the day that assistance is provided to a patient, a doctor has to assess once again their capacity to make the decision to end their own life, check again that there is a clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life, and indeed check everything again on the day, including capacity? I believe that that will negate the issue around the advance directive.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

The hon. Member makes a reasonable point. I agree with her on many issues, but on this issue I have some reservations. Clause 18(4) says:

“The coordinating doctor must be satisfied, at the time the approved substance is provided, that the person to whom it is provided…has capacity…has a clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life”.

Of course, under the wording of section 26(1) of the Mental Capacity Act, that decision can be made at an earlier time and deemed to have currency, once capacity has been lost, for its enactment at a later date. I think that there could be a minor tightening of the wording or reassurances from Government to address that, but it is an important point to raise and air.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

That is one of the additional safeguards in the Bill. This Bill has more in-built safeguards than any similar piece of legislation across the world. I think the hon. Gentleman makes a valid point: when a doctor has concerns about somebody’s mental state, they can escalate the case and seek further, specialist opinion.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I will make some progress, if I may, because I think I have indulged your patience for far too long, Ms McVey.

I am cautious about introducing this new test. I may not have persuaded everyone, but I have set out my reasons. We risk making the system overcomplicated. We would move away from the well-established mechanism under the Mental Capacity Act and into tiger country, with untried and untested systems that the courts have not considered, which will inevitably lead to challenge. There is no need to do that, because we already have robust mechanisms in place and doing so will merely lead to ambiguity and potential complications.

This is not me reaching this conclusion in isolation. Of course, there will always be voices on different sides of the debate, and we can frame the evidence we have heard to favour one set of arguments over another. However, I am significantly persuaded by the chief medical officer, given his wide experience as not just a clinician but a public policymaker. In his evidence to the Committee on 28 January, he said:

“It is not clear to me what problem people are trying to solve by doing that,”

—he means moving away from the Mental Capacity Act—

“given that the Mental Capacity Act clearly makes the point that the more severe the decision, the greater the degree of capacity that has to be assumed before people can actually take that decision.” ––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 37, Q14.]

It is that foundation that we are building on, and it is central to how these things operate in practice.

Although I understand the position of the hon. Member for Richmond Park, and I have a degree of sympathy with those who support the amendments, I invite them to reflect, in the time we have left for this debate, on whether the amendments achieve their stated aim. Do they make the Bill better or do they make it more complicated and convoluted? I say that they make it more convoluted and that, despite the best of intentions, they should not be supported.

[Daniel Francis]

My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge knows I am an ally on many of these issues, but I will humbly disagree with her on some matters. I am not a lawyer or a doctor, but like many people here I speak from lived experience. I speak as the parent of a learning-disabled child, so I see the kinds of decisions that have to be made day to day, and the kinds of arguments and conversations that have to be had with people who presume that my child has more or less capacity than she has. Believe me, that is a constant, daily battle for me and my wife.

My daughter has 12 words and a severe sight impairment, which makes it very difficult for her to make some of her decisions, as well as other complexities—predominantly her cerebral palsy, which caused a brain injury at birth. Therefore, in my own way, although I am not a lawyer or a doctor, I have become a bit of an expert on some of the capacity issues that people encounter day by day. This morning, as I do most mornings, I read to her the three choices for her breakfast. I give her a bit of time to think about them and then I repeat them. We get yes or no to those three choices, and that is the choice she makes. Because of her severe sight impairment, when I put those three options in front of her, I have to lift them up in front of my face so that she can see them; if I put them much lower down, she would not be able to see them and make a choice. She would be able to make the choice through pointing if it was within a certain range.

I have doctors calling my wife and me all the time, asking to have a conversation with my daughter, despite their having read the notes saying that she is an 11-year-old with 12 words and a severe sight impairment. I therefore query—I will refer to some of the oral evidence in a moment—how well some aspects of the Mental Capacity Act are currently being carried out. Equally, I deal with people who suggest that she has a greater level of capacity than she does.

I accept—I have had this conversation with the hon. Member for Spen Valley on a number of occasions—that this legislation would not be applicable to my daughter. However, we heard in evidence from Mencap that the vast majority of people with learning disabilities in this country are not in the same position. They are living their day-to-day lives, living in supported accommodation and making the kinds of decision we have discussed in this debate, such as buying coffee and going to the bank.

As a result of my 20 years as a councillor, and in the last 11 years since our children were born, I have become involved with a number of local disability charities, and I know the decisions that people make when their child is at that transition age. They are trying to understand the complexity of taking a power of attorney for a child, as well as other decision-making issues. I spend a lot of time with parents who do not put those measures in place, because they do not understand the complexity in terms of age. We could therefore have a young adult relying on doctors who do not know them and on a judge—I have not seen an amendment on that issue, so I am still talking about a judge—to make a decision about capacity.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I do not particularly have a question to ask my hon. Friend, but I want to pay tribute to him for engaging so positively with the scrutiny of the Bill and for the very personal experience he has shared with the Committee. I reassure him that I will do everything I can to work with him, as I have so far through this process, because his fears are real, and I hear them. We have a job to do through the Bill to solve the problems that exist for people who are dying, but we do not want to create other problems. I am happy to continue to work with him to ensure that we address as much of that as we can through the Committee.

[Daniel Francis]

I thank the Member in charge for her comments. That is the conversation we had when she invited me to join the Committee, and we will continue to have conversations as amendments come forward.

My concern is about some aspects of the Mental Capacity Act, which was not written for these scenarios, and the hon. Member for Richmond Park talked in particular about the statutory principles in it. I am not an expert on these issues, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud behind me is more of an expert on some of them. However, there is no obligation in the code of practice under the Act to consult carers involved in a person’s life. The code says:

“if it is practical and appropriate to do so, consult other people for their views about the person’s best interests”.

Therefore, given the way the Act and the code of practice are worded, there is no obligation in the scenarios I am discussing.

There is another issue I was going to raise before I took that intervention. Mencap does considerable hard work. At my local branch, there are many people whose parents are in their 70s and 80s and have cared for their child all their life. I am not being rude, but their child, who is in their 40s or 50s, does feel like a burden to their parents. They know the obligation their parents have to care for them for their whole life. I ask Members to consider what the Mental Capacity Act says: those adults are at a level of capacity to make decisions, but they have been supported in those decisions all their lives and do not—

--- Later in debate ---

“I really liked what you said yesterday; we need gold standard training. The thought yesterday about what happens with capacity made me think straight away about cases in the last few months where we, as a palliative care team, thought that someone had capacity, and the other team did not.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 194, Q254.]

[Kim Leadbeater]

My hon. Friend cites some interesting observations from the oral evidence, and I welcome his doing so. I draw his attention to my amendments 186 and 198, which look at the training. This is something I feel passionately about. If the Bill were to pass, having gold standard training would be vital, as I said during that sitting. I will do whatever I can to embed that in the Bill, and I will certainly consider what that will look like in the instances that we are discussing.

[Daniel Francis]

I welcome that commitment and look forward to that discussion in due course.

Dr Hussain went on to say:

“Ultimately, I do not think the Mental Capacity Act and safeguarding training are fit for purpose.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 199, Q260.]

Professor Owen said:

“That conveys questionable confidence in the consent processes, of which mental capacity is part, in relation to the decision to end one’s life. It is significant evidence about the confidence that is out there among experienced practitioners.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2025; c. 228, Q290.]

Dr Price said:

“I…refer back to Professor Gareth Owen’s oral submission, thinking about the purpose that the Mental Capacity Act was drawn up for and the fact that decisions about the ending of life were not one of the originally designed functions of it. We would need to think carefully about how that would then translate into a decision that was specifically about the capacity to end one’s life.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2025; c. 268, Q349.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Gentleman’s intervention helps me to explain my point more clearly, which is that the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park builds on the terms of the Mental Capacity Act. It recognises the value of the terms, which have been well established in case law through the MCA—the ability to understand, use and weigh the relevant information.

The key difference is the word “fully”. The case law around the MCA allows for somebody to be deemed capacitous even though their judgment might be impaired. What is proposed in the new clause is the closing of that lacuna, so that it would not be possible for someone to get an assisted death if their judgment was impaired. That is the key difference.

It is also important to exclude the MCA because of the thicket of complications that it would entail. We have heard about the importance of simplification. A much simpler and better way to do the entirely novel thing that we are proposing, which is to authorise assisted suicide by the state, is to have a new definition.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Lady does not like my terminology.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I do struggle with that terminology. This is not assisted suicide by the state. The state is not involved. It is the person making an autonomous decision based on their choice at the end of life. I will say on the record that the term “suicide” is not accurate for the cases we are talking about. The people we are dealing with are not suicidal. They very much want to live; they do not want to die, but they are dying. It is important that we have that on the record.

[Danny Kruger]

I think it is totally valid for us to have this argument about terminology periodically. I will repeat the point that we have made before, which is that we are actually amending the Suicide Act 1961—or rather, we are disapplying that Act—in the process set out in the hon. Lady’s Bill. There is no getting away from the fact that we are talking about assisting suicide. I am afraid that I will continue to use the term, and I hope the hon. Lady will forgive me for that.

I am arguing that the MCA is a complicating factor in the process that is being proposed for the Bill; it makes things much more difficult and complicated. The point has already been made—the hon. Member for Richmond Park put it very well—that, in the case for the MCA, a lot of weight is being put on the evidence from Sir Chris Whitty, suggesting that the MCA works very well. I point out that Sir Chris made a significant mistake in his evidence, when he said that

“the more serious the decision, the greater the level of capacity that someone needs to have.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 30, Q3.]

There is no such requirement in the Mental Capacity Act. Of course, we would hope that doctors would take a serious decision more seriously than a trivial one, but there is no such requirement. I cite Alex Ruck Keene KC, who wrote to the hon. Member for Richmond Park after his evidence session; with the greatest of respect to Chris Whitty, the fact that he got that wrong does not inspire confidence in his comments that the Mental Capacity Act is well understood by doctors throughout the country. I very much echo that. We have had so much evidence on how the Mental Capacity Act does not work well in practice that I think it was regrettable for the chief medical to have made the Panglossian observation that every doctor interprets it in exactly the same way and it works perfectly everywhere.

The Mental Capacity Act does not detect coercion. We will discuss coercion more in subsequent debates, but that Act is certainly not the safeguard against it. Professor House made some comments to us about Down’s syndrome and about diagnostic overshadowing. That is a very important concept. I am afraid to say that it is frequently the case, regarding people with severe disabilities, that capacity—or, indeed, incapacity—is not correctly observed because the medical professional will not see beyond the more presenting of their conditions. Observing capacity in someone who does have disabilities is often mistaken; it is harder than it is regarding other people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

The simple answer is yes, I do. I think it is a causatively different decision. In fact, this whole Bill entails causative differences between those decisions. I will come to that point more in a moment.

Professor Owen made an important point to us regarding capacity. He said:

“You might be talking about a kind of cognitive impairment that has not reached the threshold for a diagnosis of dementia; you might be talking about a kind of mood problem or an anxiety problem that is sub-clinical; or you might be talking about a level of intelligence that is not clinically a learning disability.”

He talked about

“pressure within a family, let us say, which is often not malign in its intentions, but it exists.”

and about situations

“where there is an impairment and also an interpersonal pressure”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2025; c. 234, Q297.]

Although we are not talking at this point explicitly about coercion and family pressure, the issues around capacity and coercion are nevertheless intertwined, and it is often very difficult for doctors to determine what is really going on. Again, the challenges around capacity are intense.

The point has been made by hon. Members that under clause 9(3)(b), if the second doctor in the process is in doubt about capacity, they “may” refer the person to a psychiatrist, but the clause in fact refers to “a registered medical practitioner” who “has experience of” the assessment of capacity—so not a psychiatrist, but just someone who has experience, whatever that means, of the assessment of capacity. It is not totally obvious what that means. Amendment 365 has been tabled overnight by the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) which would mean that both the first and second doctor, and indeed the court, if we are allowed to have a court process, “must”—not “may”— refer the person to a psychiatrist. That is not just if they are concerned about capacity, by the way. The court, or whoever it is, must conclude that there is no

“impairment of judgment arising from a mental disorder or other condition”.

I very much welcome that amendment and I hope that we will pass that in due course.

[Kim Leadbeater]

On that point about clause 9(3)(b), as I think was mentioned earlier, an amendment has been tabled by the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper)—an amendment that I would support and I hope the Committee will—that would indeed turn the “may” to a “must”, so that there has to be a referral to a psychiatrist if there is any doubt from either of those doctors.

[Danny Kruger]

That is excellent news. For the first time so far in the course of this debate, we have a strengthening of the Bill from the hon. Member. That is great news—we can chalk that up as a victory, and as good sense breaking out. I am grateful for that. Let’s see what more we can achieve.

The point that I want to make is that we are in the foothills of understanding the effects of depression, cognitive impairment and social pressure on the decision to end life. That is a point made strongly by a series of witnesses to us in both oral and written evidence: we are still very much in the early stages of understanding how capacity interacts with mental illness, disability and coercion. Then, into the mists of vagueness, we are proposing to insert this single clunking, clumsy question: “Is there evidence of incapacity?” I strongly suggest that the abuse of the Mental Capacity Act that we are seeing here is not a way of simplifying the process of ensuring that there are a small number of strong safeguards; it is a great complication of the process and introduces more complexity, as we see from the many additional things that clinicians should consider. That is in direct contradiction to the principle of the Mental Capacity Act, which simply asks the question: “Is there capacity?”

The point has been made that there is more to the Mental Capacity Act than simply the question of capacity. There are concepts of best interests and supporting decision making. As the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge suggested, it is a cumulative process. The Mental Capacity Act entails not only the question of capacity but the consideration of best interests and whether we are supporting the decision making of an individual. I am not sure how those terms apply in a situation of assisted dying. It is not similar or comparable to the sorts of decisions that the MCA is intended to apply to.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Tenth sitting)

Kim Leadbeater Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 12th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Rebecca Paul]

That is an important point. Obviously, case law becomes quite important in this. Supporting someone’s decision is very different from encouraging someone who was not in the place of wanting to go through with assisted dying. Again, these things do sometimes end up in the courts, because sometimes it can be a grey line. It is important that we have this protection. Right now, it is an offence to encourage someone to commit suicide, and we need to recognise that. That is the law right now.

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady makes an important point. The idea is that the Bill makes an exception to the Suicide Act. I fully support her point about the supportive nature of the conversations that would take place with families. If we use the word “encourage”, we are in danger of lacking clarity. Where is the line between encouragement and support? I would like her to expand on that, if she could.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Paul]

I completely agree. It is important to recognise that different people will have different views on levels of coercion. I have already quoted some of the witnesses; I found it quite jarring that certain witnesses who had facilitated assisted dying for hundreds—perhaps thousands—of people said that there were no cases of coercion. I find that difficult to believe, although I do not doubt for a second that they believe it.

[Kim Leadbeater]

The witnesses gave evidence in good faith, and I would be uncomfortable if we started to question the validity or truth behind their testimony.

[Rebecca Paul]

Just to clarify, I am not questioning that they were not telling their truth. I completely believe that, from their perspective, they honestly believe they have never seen a case of coercion. Maybe I am more of a glass-half-empty kind of girl than some other people, but I question whether that is really the case. In my 45 years on this planet, I have learned enough about humankind to know that these things do happen, but different people will take different views when it comes to detecting them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Paul]

Clause 24 decriminalises assistance to commit suicide, in order that assisted dying becomes lawful. It does not specifically decriminalise encouragement, which means that the Suicide Act 1961 still applies if someone were to encourage someone to commit suicide. It would therefore be a crime and have a sentence associated with it. However, the hon. Lady makes a really good point: it would be of great value at the relevant time to hear from the Minister on the legal point I am making. I hope everything I am saying is coherent and sound, but it would be useful to hear from the Minister.

[Kim Leadbeater]

The hon. Lady is doing an amazing job—and taking lots of interventions. As I have always said, I am very open-minded to whatever we need to do to make the Bill more robust. I am not a lawyer, like the hon. Lady—we have lawyers in the room, fortunately, who can provide guidance and assistance in that regard—but what has been made clear to me is that the law needs clarity.

The hon. Lady has already mentioned a couple of times that this change could be described as a lower level of coercion, or it could be argued that there is a lack of clarity there. I think the sentiment is absolutely right, and I really support that, but we need the law to be clear. And if legal colleagues are assuring us that the concept of undue influence would be covered under “coercion”—and I am kind of hearing that—then I think it would be covered. I think that point about the law being clear is really important. Does the hon. Lady agree with that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Paul]

I completely agree. If we do not incorporate undue influence, we are at a lower threshold compared with withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment. That does not feel to me like the right position, but equally, this is a novel bit of legislation and we need to increase the safeguards further. Obviously, we shall be debating numerous amendments whose purpose is to raise that threshold. It is always very hard—how long is a piece of string?—to know exactly where to set a threshold. Different people have different views. My personal view is that in this Bill the threshold is too low, so we need to raise it by agreeing some of these amendments. So far, none of the amendments that have been suggested has been accepted. I really hope that during this Committee stage we will increase the safeguards.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Hopefully this will be my final point on this subject. I believe there is consensus in the room; no one is saying that undue influence is acceptable. The question is, where does it sit within the Bill in terms of definitions? That is where I would appreciate, along with the hon. Lady, advice from legal experts—and indeed the Minister—around whether we are confident that with the concept of coercion we are including undue influence. Does she agree that that clarity would be helpful?

[Rebecca Paul]

I absolutely agree that such clarity would be very useful. The hon. Member and I both want to ensure that undue influence is captured somewhere; I am less picky about where. As long as it gets covered somewhere in the Bill, that would be an improvement to the Bill, and I hope that everyone would really welcome that. I think everyone recognises the issue. I am not hearing that people are opposed to this; they recognise that there can be more subtle forms of coercion. If we can work together to find the best place for that to go in the Bill, I am very open to that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Paul]

My hon. Friend’s point goes to the heart of the case, and to the point that I made earlier: it is extremely difficult when the Bill is a moving feast. We are tabling amendments to the Bill as drafted, but if substantial changes are made, that will impact some of what we did earlier.

[Kim Leadbeater]

We are looking at different amendments as the Bill progresses, but a judge would always be involved in criminal offences, which is what we are talking about now.

[Rebecca Paul]

I thank the hon. Member for sharing her view on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

I thank the hon. Member for her powerful intervention. She is right: that was the article I mentioned. Reading about such stories does have a profound impact.

[Kim Leadbeater]

My hon. Friend is making some powerful and important points about, sadly, a lot of the ills in society, which we all deal with.

Let us take the example of a woman who has a terminal illness and is coerced and pressured by a loved one to end her own life. At the moment, we have no idea whether that has happened, because there is no legal framework around that dreadful situation. The Bill would create a legal framework, so that conversations would be had with that woman prior to that point and, hopefully, that point would never come. She would speak to two doctors, potentially a psychiatrist, and other experts to ensure that that did not happen. At the moment, there is no legal framework around that. The Bill also includes a criminal offence of coercion, for which someone could go to prison for 14 years. At the moment, that just is not there.

[Naz Shah]

I thank my hon. Friend, but I feel that the point is being missed. It is true that there is no framework, but for somebody to get to this point in the first instance they need to have a terminal illness. There is a framework around domestic violence, and domestic violence laws exist for everybody. Frameworks already exist for women fleeing domestic violence, and there is no shortage of attempts to try to get those legal frameworks right across society. That is why we had the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, why we have committed to halving violence against women and girls, and why the Prime Minister made a personal commitment in that regard—and rightly so.

There has already been a test case in which a judge said that medics have an obligation in this context. An hon. Member referred yesterday to assisted dying being a treatment, although I disagree, and we had that conversation later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Juliet Campbell]

To reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, I understand that the writers, promoter and sponsors of the Bill want it to be as simple as possible. The thought is that if we make it as simple as possible, there is less room for confusion and misinterpretation, but there are times when we can make things so simple that we allow far too much interpretation. Words such as those that the hon. Member for Reigate wants to be put into the Bill are really important. Manipulation is really important. Coercion and pressure are not measures of every type of controlling behaviour that happens to individuals.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I am very supportive of the sentiment behind my hon. Friend’s amendments, and she is making some really good points. Again, the question is about the simplicity of the language that goes in the Bill. The CPS guidelines on coercion and coercive control includes behaviour that is

“highly manipulative such as: ‘love bombing’ where the suspect will intermittently do what appears to be loving acts, seeking to present these as interrupting or negating the course of conduct”,

so there is language in there about manipulation. I hope that provides some reassurance that manipulation is seen to be part of the broader concepts of coercion and coercive control in the eyes of the law.

[Juliet Campbell]

I thank my hon. Friend for looking that up so swiftly. I still think that those additional words need to be included in the Bill. “Coercion” and “pressure” are used as a catch-all for manipulation, but the Bill does not allow people who are using it in their everyday life—doctors, clinicians, nurses and social workers—to understand that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Member is absolutely right—undue influence does exist in law, including in laws that have been passed very recently. I recognise that the hon. Member for Rother Valley is not impressed by laws that are more than 10 years old, but I hope he might be satisfied that a law passed last year is sufficiently up to date and modern for him to regard as morally valid. Undue influence is an existing term, and we should apply it in this case.

[Kim Leadbeater]

On that point, and in response to the comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West, although I stand to be corrected by my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley, I do not think that he said that undue influence was an archaic term. I think it was the word “encouraged”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

My goodness, 2009 might be in the mists of history for the hon. Member for Rother Valley, but it was the last Labour Government. That is very good to know, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

The hon. Member for Spen Valley made the point, which is quite often made in defence of the Bill, that there is currently no framework to spot coercion, therefore the Bill creates greater protections for people. The fact is that, as the hon. Member for Bradford West said, there is no law that currently allows assisted dying, so no framework is necessary to prohibit encouragement or inducement to an assisted death—the opportunity does not exist. I think everyone must acknowledge that, if we pass the Bill, we may open up a new avenue for abuse, and it is necessary that the Bill close it off. That is right and appropriate.

Coercion and abuse no doubt go on and are tragically common, but the answer to that problem is not to legalise assisted suicide and put a regulatory framework around it with limited protections against coercion and influence. We have to deal with the terrible cancer of abuse and coercion that exists in our society, as the hon. Member for Bradford West said. If we are concerned about undue pressure in families, that should be our social mission. If we are to have an assisted dying law, let us make it as strong as possible. As I say, we are potentially opening up a new avenue for abuse within families.

[Kim Leadbeater]

For me, the law needs to change for a number of reasons, and we will talk about some of them as Committee proceedings continue: autonomy, dignity, personal choice and bodily autonomy. In terms of this issue, we heard from families who faced police investigations as a result of a loved one taking their own life. Not only were they dealing with the trauma, grief and loss of their bereavement, but they faced often months and months of police investigation. In the oral evidence sessions, we heard from Pat Malone, who was in that situation after his brother took his own life. Surely the hon. Member has to acknowledge that that is a problem. It is not the only problem, and it is not the only reason for the Bill, but he has to acknowledge that we as legislators have a duty to correct it.

[Danny Kruger]

I am sure that the hon. Lady will acknowledge that those investigations will still happen, because not everybody who commits suicide will be subject to the Bill; not everybody who is terminally ill and wants to take their life with the assistance of their loved ones will be caught under it. I am sure she acknowledges that it is therefore still appropriate to have safeguards against assisted suicide outside the law—in fact, the Bill strengthens those safeguards. Those will still continue. I also regard it as appropriate and necessary to have a law against assisted suicide, for all the reasons that we have been discussing.

The hon. Lady is right that it is appropriate for Parliament or the authorities in general to ensure that cases such as those we have discussed, and that have been powerfully testified to us, are handled sensitively. In an overwhelming number of cases, the police do handle them well and sensitively. It might be that we need to improve the guidance around prosecution, and that is an important question. I certainly do not want the families of people who have taken their own lives to be harassed and chased through the courts, and I think we would all agree on that. In that respect, the guidance for the CPS and the police will always evolve.

[Danny Kruger]

I think that is right. I do not accept the claim that this Bill is somehow a response to the problem of abuse, coercion or the pressure to end life in families. Tragically, in jurisdictions that have an assisted dying law, the number of unassisted suicides—suicides that happen outside of the law—go up, because no law can catch all the people who might want to take their own lives. Thankfully, there is no blanket support for any assisted suicide; all the jurisdictions have some restrictions.

More significantly, if the state said that some people’s lives are not worth living and that it is an acceptable choice for them to end their own life—which is not what the current law says; we have legalised suicide, not actually endorsed it—by passing a law that endorsed the choice of some people to take their own life, we would be sending a signal that we agree that some people’s lives are not worth living. The social consequence of that is clear in the evidence from other jurisdictions: suicide in the general population goes up as a result of an assisted dying law.

[Kim Leadbeater]

On that point, the evidence does not clearly show that there is a direct relationship between those two things; there are other factors and no way of knowing that. On the concept of ending one’s own life and giving people the choice under the provisions of the Bill, what would the hon. Gentleman say to people who frame that concept very differently—as a way to shorten their death? Those terminally ill people, in my experience—I have met many of them now—do not view this as a way of ending their life, because they want to live, but the reality is that they are dying and want to take control of what their death looks like. How would he respond to that?

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Kim Leadbeater Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Naz Shah]

I completely agree, which is why the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) is very important. I urge the Committee to accept it, as it would ensure the provision of a palliative care consultation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has always said, it is about having a holistic approach—we need to get back to that.

In the evidence sessions, we heard that palliative care social workers can play a pivotal role in supporting patients. Those from other professions—psychological services, chaplaincy services, physiotherapists, occupational therapists and speech therapists—along with specialist nurses and medics can all contribute to the care of a patient at the end of life. In discussions with palliative care specialists who listened to the debate on 29 November, they were perplexed by the symptoms that were graphically described in the case studies, and cited poor care as the reason for them. Many such symptoms can be controlled, and they were shocked that such examples of poor care were presented as a reason for assisted death, rather than for making good quality palliative care available to all patients.

We further heard evidence, especially from Dr Jamilla Hussain, that access to palliative care is inequitable. We know that those from minoritised communities and from low socioeconomic backgrounds have poorer access to good palliative care, and that people can have poor access depending on where they live, and on the day of the week or the hour of the day. Through this amendment, we want to ensure that everyone who is seeking an assisted death, or who has it suggested to them, as this Bill allows, is able to access a consultation or consultations with a palliative care specialist, who can dispel the myths while supporting them with their end-of-life plan.

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend talked about the stories that we heard on Second Reading. Does she acknowledge, as Dr Sarah Cox from the Association for Palliative Medicine said, that there are cases where palliative care cannot meet a patient’s needs? We have a lady in the Public Gallery this morning whose mother had a horrible death, having had ovarian cancer and mouth cancer; she had to have her tongue removed, so she could not eat and drink, and she essentially starved to death. We have to be careful not to dismiss those cases, because they are real stories of real human beings, and we have to acknowledge the limitations of palliative care.

[Naz Shah]

I absolutely agree. Nobody in this Committee, from what I have heard over the weeks of evidence that we have taken, is suggesting in any way that we are dismissive of people who actually need an assisted death and would benefit from the Bill. As I have said previously, and as Dr Jamilla said very clearly, there are some patients who clinically would benefit from an intervention such as an assisted death. I came on to this Bill Committee to ensure we have the best legislation and safeguards in place. The Bill currently does not ensure that people are aware of the options. This amendment would ensure that people have considered all options and can make an informed choice. If there is no requirement to speak to a specialist, I am afraid the Bill would do a disservice to those who might want to use it to seek an assisted death by not presenting them with those options.

In evidence from the representative of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, we heard an example of somebody who was in lots of pain and decided to seek an assisted death, but changed their mind once they understood that their pain could be alleviated. That is what this amendment is about. I urge the Committee to vote for it, because it is fundamental that we enable people to make an informed choice and to understand the services and options available to them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I do not think that offends the principle at all. Whether I was working within the NHS or the private sector, if a patient requested an onward referral to a different specialist, I would action that. If I did not have the requisite skills or knowledge, or felt that they would be better served by a different speciality, I would refer on to another clinician. I do not see how it would be treated any differently in the NHS than it would be privately. I am afraid that I do not follow that argument.

[Kim Leadbeater]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I will address the amendments in two different ways. I will start by looking at the technical issues around amendment 281, and then I will look at why I believe, as other colleagues have said, that the amendments are not necessary given what already exists both in the Bill and in terms of good practice in our health service.

First, I worry that amendment 281 will not have the effect that my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) intends. Clause 1(2), to which the amendment relates, provides an overview of the other clauses in the Bill, and therefore cross-refers to sections 5 to 22. Clause 1(2) does not impose duties on persons in and of itself. The duties are set out in the later clauses to which it refers. Adding an additional subsection to clause 1, as proposed by the amendment, would not result in a requirement that the person must meet a palliative care specialist. That is a technical detail to reflect on.

In addition, the term “palliative care specialist” is not a defined term. Palliative medicine is a designated speciality of the General Medical Council, and a doctor can apply to be entered on to the GMC specialist register for the speciality provided that they have the specialist medical qualification, training or experience. However, the current wording of the amendment means that it is not clear whether it is seeking to require the person concerned to meet with one of those specialist doctors, or whether a meeting with another medical professional specialising in palliative care—for example, a specialist palliative care nurse—would suffice. There is no equivalent specialist register for specialist palliative care nurses. It is a technical issue, but an important one.

I also point out that my hon. Friend the Member for York Central has put an incorrect explanatory note with the amendment, which refers to terminal illness. That might just be an error, but I wanted to point that out.

Coming on to the broader grouping of the provisions: as has been said by colleagues, the amendments are tabled with really good intentions by someone who cares passionately about the palliative care sector. But they are not necessary given the process that is already set out by the Bill. Both doctors already have to discuss all treatment options, and must make a referral if they have any doubt about the diagnosis. It is very clear from clauses 4 and 9 that both the co-ordinating doctor and the independent doctor must discuss all treatment options with the patient, so they will have all the options laid out before them. That is really important because we have to think about what happens in reality. This initial discussion, in many cases, may actually take place with a palliative care doctor, and in many cases it will be highly likely, given the nature of the conditions we are talking about, that the patient may already be receiving treatment or advice from a palliative care team.

We seem to have created a narrative where this conversation is happening in isolation. Actually, as other colleagues have alluded to, we have a patient-centred approach in our healthcare. This person does not just suddenly arrive and have this one random conversation. I am sure medical colleagues will correct me if I am wrong, but if a doctor is dealing with a condition of which they have very limited knowledge, one of the first things they would do would be to refer to a specialist.

As is covered in clause 9(3)(a), if the doctor has any

“doubt as to whether the person being assessed is terminally ill,”

they must

“refer the person for assessment by a registered medical practitioner who holds qualifications in or has experience of the diagnosis and management of the illness, disease or condition in question;”

Clause 9(2)(a) also states that both doctors must assess the patient’s

“medical records and make such other enquiries as the assessing doctor considers appropriate;”

They can speak to anyone they want to, and they would in reality—of course that is what they would do. They would not sit there and think, “Oh, I don’t know enough about this condition so I will just keep going.” They would refer to specialists.

It is also really important to acknowledge what goes on at the moment. I was looking at some research last night: NHS England also has comprehensive guidance on personalised palliative and end-of-life care through a comprehensive personalised care model. None of this stops with the introduction of assisted dying as a choice for people. It would continue to happen. Patients are already getting that really good level of care.

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Lady is making a very good speech about how things should work and how things do work, in many cases, when the NHS does its job brilliantly. First, I want to correct the hon. Lady: subsequent amendments do impose the duty that is consequent to these amendments to clause 1, so it would be an obligation. Surely that is the point to make: what if the doctors are not as brilliant as she suggests? What if there is not an expectation that they should definitely seek expertise that they do not have themselves? To the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate, what if this service is provided outside the NHS by an independent charity or private provider set up explicitly to facilitate people’s assisted death requests, and has no intention of referring people to palliative care if they do not ask for it themselves? Would she be content for a private provider to refer somebody for an assisted death without a palliative care referral?

[Kim Leadbeater]

I do worry about the lack of faith in our professionals. We have medical practitioners on the Committee and we have heard stories of the very good practice that happens, so it concerns me that we are so cynical about our system. Ultimately, we have to put faith in our professionals to do their job and to take that patient-centred approach, as I firmly believe they do. Dr Sarah Cox from the Association for Palliative Medicine said in her evidence to the Committee:

“In clinical practice, we make all these decisions in multi-professional teams…shared decisions are much better quality, much more robust and much safer.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 74, Q90.]

I absolutely agree with her, and that would continue to be the case.

[Naz Shah]

The hon. Member mentioned earlier the idea that this is happening in isolation, but it is her Bill that is saying that it will just be two doctors, not a team of medical professionals.

[Kim Leadbeater]

But it does not say that at all. It actually says that they have to refer, and that they have to consult with other people. That is part of the process. That is exactly what happens now. Professor Aneez Esmail, who is the emeritus professor of general practice at the University of Manchester and who has been a practising GP for over 30 years, told us in his evidence to the Committee:

“In terms of holistic care, currently when I look after dying people I never do it on my own; I am with district nurses, Macmillan nurses, or on call to a palliative care consultant. There is already a team of people looking after dying people…palliative care…works very well and it works in a multidisciplinary way. I think that this legislation will allow a much more open discussion and proper monitoring. It will improve training, guidance and everything else. People say that it will enhance palliative care, and that is what I think will happen.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 171, Q219.]

Indeed, as was referred to by the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley, if we consider the training included in the Bill, which doctors will undergo as part of the introduction of assisted dying, evidence from other jurisdictions shows that these are very detailed conversations where health professionals work together in the same way as they do at the moment in end of life care and decision making. As I have said repeatedly, the training is fundamental. I agree absolutely with Dr Rachel Clarke, who told us:

“If there is one thing that I would say to the Committee regarding making the Bill as robust, strong and safe as possible, it is: please consider seriously the matter of education and training”.––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 71, Q85.]

I agree 100% and I have embedded that in the Bill.

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend quotes Dr Rachel Clarke. I was profoundly moved by her evidence. She was very clear that she wanted to talk about the NHS as it is, not as we would like it to be. Despite the efforts the Government are putting into bringing down waiting lists, there is still extreme time pressure on doctors. There are extreme waiting lists for people to access specialist care, which may impinge on the ability of doctors to carry out what my hon. Friend is asking. Does she accept that?

[Kim Leadbeater]

That brings me on very nicely to my next point, so I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. At the moment, the Bill accommodates a two-year implementation period, which is really important because it will take time to put the procedures in place: it will take time to train people and it will take time to work holistically with the overall healthcare system. It could end up being longer than two years. If that is the case to put all the robust systems in place—to improve things, and to work holistically with palliative care and other aspects of the NHS—then that is the right thing to do, and I would be open-minded to a conversation about that.

To finish, I also note that the General Medical Council’s “Good medical practice” guide, which is the framework of professional standards, already provides that in providing clinical care a doctor

“must refer a patient to another suitably qualified practitioner when this serves their needs”.

This is what doctors do: they refer if they need extra advice; they take a holistic approach.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

I just want to quickly point out that we have a check on the conversations that happen in the first stages. In clause 8, which covers the second doctor’s assessment, that second doctor must be satisfied that the individual has a “clear, settled” and, critically, “informed” wish to end their own life. So, there will be a doctor who is verifying that the person is informed properly about their options. My concern about the amendments is that, as the hon. Lady says, we are inserting now a third doctor into a system which, with regard to the panel, will already have three, four or five specialists involved in the assessment of the care.

[Kim Leadbeater]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It feeds into comments that have already been made about how difficult we are making the process. I agree that this should be a difficult process—it should be a robust process, with thorough checks, safeguards and balances throughout—but we are in danger of forgetting the dying person at the heart of the process.

[Rebecca Paul]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kim Leadbeater]

I am going to finish, if I may.

We need to be really careful that we take a person-centred approach, as happens now. Doctors, medical practitioners and healthcare professionals quite rightly take a holistic patient-centred approach. That approach will be further enhanced by the robust training the Bill incorporates, and by adding the extra layers of safeguards and protection. Really importantly, it would open up conversations about death and dying.

[The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford.

As previously stated, my role, and that of the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green, is not to give a Government view, given that the Government remain neutral on the Bill, but to outline the legal and practical impacts of amendments tabled.

The amendments are intended to add a new step in the process set out in the Bill, requiring consultation with a palliative care specialist. The purpose of amendment 281 is to require a person to have met a palliative care specialist before completing the required steps and assessments to end their life. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the person has understood the full range of end of life options available to them. Our assessment suggests that the present drafting, adding a subsection to clause 1(2), would not achieve that effect without further amendments to other clauses in the Bill. The amendment would increase demand on palliative care specialists and, should Members decide to amend the Bill in this way, we would need to work with the NHS and other provider organisations to assess how to operationalise it.

Amendments 298 and 299 would require the co-ordinating doctor to have received confirmation that the person seeking an assisted death has had a consultation with a specialist in palliative medicine about palliative care options before they are able to make a first statement under clause 7(3)(a). That would mean that a co-ordinating doctor would not be able to make a statement following a first assessment, and therefore refer a person to the independent doctor for a second assessment, unless the person had had a consultation about palliative care options with a palliative care specialist. As with previous amendments, the amendment would increase demand for palliative care specialists, and we would need to work with the NHS and other provider organisations to assess how to operationalise it, should hon. Members decide to pass amendments in that area.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.

[Kim Leadbeater]

On the point made by the hon. Member for East Wiltshire, the Bill does not replace what already happens, and what Dr Cox was saying was that those conversations are already happening in a multidisciplinary way. We do not take that away.

[Naz Shah]

One of my concerns is that although the Government position in relation to the Bill, as they have said, is neutrality, the Government, in my opinion, have taken a position without an impact assessment, which might suggest that there is some ambiguity. Would the Minister therefore support redrafting potential amendments to include that? If it did specify a doctor or nurse, would the Government then, in their tidying-up, be prepared to accept that amendment?

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Gentleman has been on his feet; I appreciate that and am very grateful for his contribution to the debates that we have had.

I simply want to make the point that what the House voted for on Second Reading was the principle of assisted dying. What many members of the public who support the Bill think they are getting is a Bill that is safe—a Bill that is restricted explicitly to people at the very end of their life, who face extreme pain and suffering as they die; who are fully informed of what they are doing; who face no questions of external or indeed internal coercion; who have the absolute ability to understand what they are doing. Those are the things that people want to see in the Bill; those are the things that we have sought to effect through the amendments that we have tabled, and which the Committee has rejected.

Very explicitly, as a result of the rejection of these, I believe, very plainly written amendments, the fact is that under this Bill you can be depressed and suicidal and still regarded as having capacity to have an assisted death. You can be very marginalised—you can be a prisoner, you can be homeless—and still be regarded as eligible. You can have been influenced or encouraged by others and still be eligible. You can do it because you feel a burden. You do not need to be in any kind of pain. You do not need to be in the tiny proportion of cases that palliative care cannot help. As the hon. Member for Spen Valley accepted in the previous sitting, you can seek an assisted death for the sole reason of saving your family money, and you would be granted an assisted death on those grounds. The fact is that in rejecting these amendments, the Committee has decided and has demonstrated that the Bill is much wider than the campaigners portray.

I want to end with this point. I think there are two ways of approaching assisted dying—two essential framings of a Bill to legalise it. One is an autonomy Bill, which simply says that if people seek help to commit suicide, within certain broad parameters they should be able to do so, and there is no question of other people interfering with that choice; if they sign the requisite paperwork, they should be able to have an assisted death. The alternative is what we might call a safeguarding Bill—one where eligibility for the procedure is strictly limited and there are very strong, robust safeguards in place to protect the most vulnerable people.

The hon. Lady, and Members speaking in support of the Bill, have repeatedly emphasised that this is a safeguarding Bill. They want this Bill to be built around safeguards for the vulnerable. They respect the arguments that we make about the dangers that an open-ended assisted dying Bill would create. But the fact is that, as we have seen in the course of the debates on this clause, this is not a safeguarding Bill; it is an autonomy Bill. It is one that allows people to proceed to an assisted death because they want one, if they meet certain very loosely drawn criteria.

[Kim Leadbeater]

The reality is that this Bill is both. Of course it is about personal autonomy, choice and dignity for people who are coming towards the end of their life, but it has to be safeguarded as well. It is both. If I may say so, I think that the hon. Member makes quite an unfair characterisation of the robust, powerful debate that has taken place in Committee during the time that we have spent together. I think it has been extremely well informed. People have listened intently to other points of view and opinions, and it does the Committee a disservice to suggest otherwise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Paul]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, but I respectfully suggest that that is not the case and there is data. Professor David Paton found a 6% increase overall, and interestingly it was 13% for women.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I would be interested to know whether that data shows a link or a direct causation effect.

[Rebecca Paul]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising that point. I think that what has been looked at is the number of unassisted suicides. The hon. Lady makes the good point that obviously we need to look at all the different factors that could be part of that, but I am just making the point that when we look at territories that have introduced assisted dying, we find that at the point at which it is introduced, we generally see, in most territories, an increase in unassisted suicide. I do not think that we should rush to disregard that. We need to recognise that in helping a small group of people at the end of their life, which undoubtedly this Bill will do, there will be a price to be paid. That price will be paid by our young people and other vulnerable groups.

I will not vote in favour of clause 1—I do not think that there will be a Division on it anyway—but I will not oppose it either, for the reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire set out. I understand that it is the key clause in order for us to progress and continue the debate, which is what Parliament wishes us to do, but I hope that the Committee will be more receptive to improving the safeguards as we progress through the Bill. The amendments really were tabled in good faith. We did our best to write them in a clear way, but obviously the private Member’s Bill process makes that more difficult. This is not a Government Bill, but we are all doing the best we can to table amendments that would improve the safety of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

all symptoms of frailty.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I am interested to know where the hon. Member has got the idea that someone is going to scrap the six-month prognosis from.

[Danny Kruger]

Well, if the hon. Lady will say that she will never, at any stage, support a proposal to extend it beyond six months, I will be very glad to hear it. My concern is that we already have amendments tabled to do exactly that, which we will be debating shortly. I hope they will be rejected, but my confident expectation, on the basis of other countries, including the Australians who gave evidence to this Committee, is that the six-month safeguard will soon be seen as a barrier to a human right, because there is indeed no logical basis for such an arbitrary date.

The people who currently deal with the six-month prognosis, in the context of benefits and pensions, campaign that it is arbitrary and unworkable—rightly, I think—so I am afraid that I confidently expect the six-month barrier to be challenged in due course. If the hon. Lady is prepared to say that she would never do that, however, I would be very reassured.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Would the hon. Member agree that the purpose of the Committee is to look at the Bill before us? That is why we are here. I understand his concerns, his reservations and his nervousness about what might happen in future, and that is an important conversation to have, but the purpose of the Committee is to look at the Bill as it stands today; that should be the focus of our deliberations.

[Danny Kruger]

Yes, but I simply state on the record that I believe that this is not the end, but the beginning of a wider Bill that would follow if we passed this one. I am encouraged by what the hon. Lady says, or implies: that she does not want to go further than this Bill.

My plea to the Committee is straightforward. Let us confine eligibility to the people who the campaigners talk about: those with diseases or illnesses that are genuinely terminal. We can do more to strengthen that definition with later amendments, but, first, we have to remove the gaping hole in the fence that is this term “medical condition”. Let us remove that term.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

Again, I am interested in that, because I would be surprised if that condition were not adequately captured by the term “illness” or “disease”. If not, we should seek further clarification, because we need to be very specific. Illness or disease has been adequate; it is adequate in the current law on terminal illness for eligibility for benefits and pensions. I await clarification on what is added by the term “medical condition”, because my concern is that it opens the door to frailty. Going back to Chris Whitty’s evidence, I am concerned at his suggestion that frailty should be an eligible condition for an assisted death.

I will wrap up shortly so that hon. Members have time to speak to other amendments, but I will quickly refer to amendment 181 tabled by the hon. Member for Spen Valley and amendment 11 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool), which attempt to do the same thing as my amendments. They seek to protect disabled or mentally ill people, but they do so explicitly by disapplying the provisions of the Bill for those groups, or they attempt to do so. Only amendment 11 actually does, while amendment 181 fails to do so, in my view.

Let us look at subsection (3), which attempts to protect disabled people and those with mental disorders, but which, on closer inspection, is ineffective or even meaningless. In statutory interpretation, the first phrase,

“For the avoidance of doubt.”

indicates that the subsection does not add anything to the Bill except clarity. It is intended not to change the law that is being enacted by the Bill, but to clarify the meaning of the Bill. My point is that it does not add anything—in fact, it signals that the clause can be disregarded. It is like an explanatory note and not actually relevant to the Bill. Its effect therefore negates the point that it tries to make. In including it, the hon. Lady protests too much and exposes the weakness that the clause fails to overcome. It invites a court to disregard the protection it pretends to offer by stating that that protection has no force except what is elsewhere in the Bill.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I agree with the hon. Member to some degree in terms of the legal drafting. I have been advised that the expression “for the avoidance of doubt” is not generally used in a Bill if the Bill is already clear, which this is—I have been reassured by parliamentary counsel about that—but I was keen, having met disabled people and disability rights activists, to have it very clearly in the Bill that by virtue of having a disability, a mental health condition or a mental disorder, someone would not be in scope of the Bill. It was a very clear drafting decision and I stand by that decision; I think it is the right thing to do so that we are clear who is not covered by the Bill.

[Danny Kruger]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady; it is helpful to understand her thinking. Her amendment is an attempt to further clarify her purpose, which is to communicate that we cannot have an assisted death only because of a mental disorder or a disability. I know that other colleagues will speak to that point more explicitly.

My point is that

“For the avoidance of doubt”

is a massive signal to the courts that the subsection is meaningless. The advice was right that it is not usual to include that phrase, as it signals that nothing is being added. My concern is that it does not add anything, and the inclusion of the word “only” further demonstrates the hollowness of the protection that it purports to offer. The fact is that someone will still be able to get an assisted death because of a physical illness that derives from a mental disorder or disability. That is my concern with the later parts of the clause, but I will leave other Members to make that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

Sorry, I mean amendment 11. Thank you, Mr Efford.

I think it will be helpful to spell out what the Bill currently says, and what it would say if amendment 11 were adopted. I will also set why the amendment would provide a much stronger safeguard than amendment 181, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley.

Clause 2(3) states:

“For the avoidance of doubt, a person is not to be considered to be terminally ill by reason only”

—I stress the word “only”—

“of the person having one or both of—

(a) a mental disorder, within the meaning of the Mental Health 1983;

(b) a disability, within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010.”

If amendment 11 is agreed to, clause 2(3) will read:

“A person is not to be considered to be terminally ill by reason of the person having one or both of—

(a) a mental disorder, within the meaning of the Mental Health 1983;

(b) a disability, within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010.”

That may seem a very small change, but it is an extremely important one.

The Bill, as presented to Parliament on Second Reading, would allow someone to qualify for assisted dying if they had a mental health condition such as anorexia nervosa and a physical condition such as malnutrition. To put it with absolute bluntness, that means that somebody with anorexia nervosa could stop eating until they suffered so badly from malnutrition that two doctors prognose that the patient is likely to die within six months. That person, under the Bill, would then qualify for assisted dying.

[Kim Leadbeater]

This is a really important discussion and I am so glad that we are having it—some brilliant points have been made. As someone who has worked with people with anorexia, I am very aware of the sensitivities of the condition and the issues around it. Would my hon. Friend agree that, as part of this discussion, we have to consider the capacity assessment of people with eating disorders? It is a very serious mental health condition; it would require a lot for somebody with anorexia to pass the capacity threshold for making a decision of this magnitude. It is certainly the sort of instance where I would be very surprised if a doctor did not refer to an eating disorder specialist. Does my hon. Friend agree that we have to look at the condition and how the patient should be cared for holistically?

[The Chair]

Order. I remind hon. Members that there are a set of amendments in the next group about anorexia. Let us not go too far down this road.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. Does she agree that the reporting and data around assisted dying are fundamental? That is why it is important that, if the law is to change in this country, we get that absolutely right. What we propose in the Bill is closest to the laws in Australia, and in my understanding there have been no assisted deaths of people with anorexia in Australia. However, my hon. Friend makes a valid point about the accuracy of reporting; we do not know whether those examples were people with anorexia who happened to have cancer as well. We just do not know, and that is not good enough.

[Naz Shah]

I absolutely agree that if the Bill is to get through Parliament, it has to have those mechanisms and safeguards in place, but I am sure we will come to those later. If we do not know with any reasonable degree of accuracy how many cases there have been worldwide, we cannot say where the majority of such cases have occurred. When we are told that there have been zero assisted deaths of people with anorexia in Australia, I would err on the side of caution—another witness said that there were zero deaths involving coercion.

I understand that my hon. Friend’s amendment 181 also attempts to change clause 2, but the change would still allow people to qualify for an assisted death if they had a mental disorder alongside a physical disorder. I have no doubt that this stems from a compassionate desire not to exclude—for example, someone who has mild depression and a major physical illness—but its effect is to create a major risk for people suffering from both a mental health disorder that affects their eating and a physical disorder caused by not eating. To avoid that risk, the Bill must be much more tightly worded than it was when presented to the House on Second Reading, and it must be much more tightly worded than amendment 181 would make it.

We must make it much harder in the Bill for people to qualify for assisted death by way of having malnutrition caused by an eating disorder. It is a complex problem, and I believe no one amendment will solve it completely. I have submitted two amendments with the aim of making a contribution. Amendment 11 would also make a significant contribution to solving the problem, and I urge all Members to support it.

I turn to amendment 181, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley. Although the Acts mentioned in clause 2 define mental illness and disability as being taken from the clear medical model, it is not clear if she is further suggesting that a new definition should be used—for instance, the social model. Someone could have a significant impairment under a social model of disability, and for the purposes of the Bill, not consider themselves to be a disabled person. Therefore, they could qualify for an assisted death, thus rendering the provision of no worth.

It is therefore unclear what my hon. Friend is similarly proposing with regard to mental illness. Amendment 11 is needed to provide assurance that if someone does have a mental illness, then it is tightly defined and would preclude them from being able to access an assisted suicide, in case the reason they are seeking it is the mental illness and not the terminal diagnosis. I will speak further on that later.

If amendment 181 was agreed to, the clause would read that a person is not to be considered terminally ill

“only because they are a person with a disability”.

There are two obvious problems with the amendment. First, the amendment removes references to the Equality Act 2010 and the Mental Health Act, which previously defined who did and did not have a disability or a mental health disorder, but having removed those definitions, it does not then define disability or mental disorder in the Bill. What definition will medical practitioners, and indeed applicants, use to determine who does or does not have a disability or mental disorder?

[Kim Leadbeater]

In terms of the removal of references to the Equality Act, I was not aware when the Bill was initially drafted that cancer is actually classed as a disability. Given the fact that in some countries 70% of assisted deaths are for cancer patients, it would seem ridiculous to exclude cancer patients from having the option of assisted death. I hope that goes some way towards explaining that point.

[Naz Shah]

I thank my hon. Friend for clarifying that—that is really helpful. But where does the amendment leave us in terms of disabled people? I am just trying to understand.

[Kim Leadbeater]

The concepts of a mental disorder and a disability are well understood, and those terms are well used. In the eyes of the law, we would not need to provide a definition of those in the Bill, but the removal of the reference that would include people with cancer is an important thing to do.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Kim Leadbeater Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Daniel Francis]

I will return to that. I understand what amendment 11 seeks to do, but I think we should have a hybrid, because I do not think either amendment would completely achieve what we want. I will seek the Minister’s advice in due course. I understand the legal advice to my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley on this matter, and I understand that all the amendments have been tabled in good faith, but I am concerned about the loopholes that could remain.

We heard on Second Reading that assisted dying will not be available to disabled people, but let us imagine an individual who does not consider themselves to be disabled. If they were diagnosed with cancer tomorrow, our current legislation states that they would be disabled from the point of diagnosis. They could live with that cancer and receive treatment for a considerable time, while continuing to have no other disability. When they receive a six-month prognosis, they would be eligible for assisted dying due to the same disability they have had for a very considerable time, and it would remain the only disability they have had in their entire life. I remain concerned that my hon. Friend’s amendment still talks about disability, potentially leaving that loophole.

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, but the purpose of the Bill is that a person with a terminal cancer diagnosis and six months left to live would have the choice of assisted death. As we have heard, they might have seen the suffering of relatives with a similar cancer, and they might have seen what their death looked like. I understand that people might disagree, but that is the purpose of the Bill.

[Daniel Francis]

I hear that point but, looking at my postbag, the people who berate me for not supporting the Bill often talk about their loved ones with motor neurone disease or Parkinson’s, which I understand from oral evidence will be exempt. We need to make it clear which disabilities and conditions will be eligible, and I am not sure that the amendments before the Committee nail it down. I am concerned that the wording would lead to potential loopholes and legal challenges.

We should still be concerned about legal review of the Bill, based on indirect disability discrimination. The Equality Act says that indirect discrimination happens when a rule, a policy or even a practice that applies to everyone disadvantages people with a particular disability, compared with people who do not have that disability, where that cannot be shown to be justified as being intended to meet a legitimate objective in a fair, balanced and reasonable way.

If we accepted this amendment to allow the inclusion of cancer and some other disabilities set out in the Equality Act, I believe it would be argued in due course that other disabilities meet the criteria for assisted dying and, despite the promises made to this Committee and to the House in good faith, the loopholes would allow the criteria to be widened.

Other amendments in this group retain the reference to the Equality Act 2010, which could equally result in legal challenges down the line, for the reasons my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley outlined this morning. I am not deliberately being difficult, but I am not sure that any of the amendments would completely achieve what they seek to achieve.

I await the Minister’s view on the matter but, as things stand, I am concerned that we will take the clause back to the House without completely satisfying Members’ aims. By allowing those with cancer to seek assisted dying, there could be a loosening of the rules for other disabilities. I fear there could be manuscript amendments on this matter, but I await the Government’s view on the robustness of these amendments if they were to be accepted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. She brings us back to the fundamental point made in the Bill, which is that it has to be “an inevitably progressive illness”. Eating disorders do not fall under that definition: that is very clear. I hope that that explanation and the observation that I have made on the other amendments are helpful to members of the Committee in their consideration.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I will keep my comments brief, because we have had a very thorough discussion today. I will first speak briefly to amendment 123, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe. Amendment 123 would change “an inevitably” progressive disease to “a typically” progressive disease. [Interruption.] Is that the next grouping? Oh, I am peaking too soon—my apologies, Mr Dowd.

I will come back to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe, but let me turn to amendments 399, 400 and 401, on the exclusion of “medical condition”, which the hon. Member for East Wiltshire submitted a few days ago, before the end of the recess. I looked at them over the weekend and was very interested to hear his reasoning for them today. This is the purpose of the Committee; I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said, and he has made some valuable points. All along, I have taken the view that this legislation must not only be the strongest anywhere in the world, but be very clear in its intentions and leave no room for ambiguity regarding who is entitled to request assistance under its provisions.

I am very comfortable with the definition of terminal illness in the Bill, but across the world—I have done lots of research into this, as I know other colleagues have—some jurisdictions use the term “medical condition” or, actually, just the term “condition”, and others do not. Many in Australia do, but in New Zealand, for example, which has a similar law to what is being proposed here, “medical conditions” do not feature, nor do they in a number of states in America.

While I do not necessarily think that it would definitely be problematic to include the term “medical condition”, I appreciate the argument that the hon. Gentleman has made. We have to be as cautious as possible to ensure that the Bill achieves its purpose but does not create a lack of clarity. That point has been very well made.

The advice that I have received from officials is that, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, “medical condition” does not have a clear legal definition and could therefore be seen as imprecise. That does worry me. The purpose of the Bill is clear—it is in the title. It is to give choice to terminally ill adults at the end of life. They must have a clear, settled and informed wish, and be expected to die within six months, in circumstances that are inevitably progressive and cannot be reversed by treatment. The hon. Gentleman has, I believe, helped to make that even clearer, and I am grateful to him for doing so.

[Naz Shah]

My hon. Friend is making her points very clearly. The last words of amendment 181 are:

“Nothing in this subsection results in a person not being regarded as terminally ill for the purposes of this Act if (disregarding this subsection) the person meets the conditions in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1).”

Does that not demonstrate that the amendment does not change the test for terminal illness?

[Kim Leadbeater]

My apologies; I am speaking to amendments 399, 400 and 401. I will be happy to come back to that point at the appropriate time, but I first want to finish my comments on those amendments.

As I have said, the hon. Member for East Wiltshire has done a good job this morning of improving the clarity of the issue. That shows that the Committee is doing its job and working effectively. I am therefore open to supporting those amendments.

[Danny Kruger]

I am delighted to hear it. I am grateful to the hon. Lady and to other hon. Members who have indicated their sympathy for the amendment. I look forward to the Division and to the Minister’s decision.

May I follow up on a point made by the hon. Member for Bradford West? I do not know whether the hon. Member for Spen Valley would like to intervene to help me understand the point. Amendment 181 would redraft clause 3(2) to make it clear that a person does not qualify as terminally ill

“only because they are a person with a disability or mental disorder”.

It would add to clause 3(2) the following additional sentence:

“Nothing in this subsection results in a person not being regarded as terminally ill for the purposes of this Act if…the person meets the conditions in paragraphs (a) and (b)”.

Does the hon. Member for Spen Valley agree that that will essentially mean that the clause does nothing? It confirms the terms of eligibility set out earlier in the Bill, and confirms that a person would still be eligible to receive an assisted death if they had conditions that were a consequence of a mental disorder or a disability. If she feels like intervening on me, I would like her to help me understand what that additional sentence adds. To my mind, it negates the purpose of the clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Paul]

I thank the hon. Member for that thoughtful intervention, and I completely concede that it is not entirely clear, and there are different sources that describe it differently, which, for a non-medical person like myself, makes it difficult. There are certain websites, including NHS England, that may reference it as “progressive”, but equally I am sure that there are other sources that do not describe it in the same way. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough makes a really good point, and he will see that I quite often talk about things arguably being the case; I am not saying that it definitely is—I am just highlighting that there is a risk, because if people disagree on whether it is progressive, that is when we have an issue. I see this as an opportunity to tighten up any of that potential risk.

I would say the ordinary person on the street would not expect diabetes to ever fall within the definition of a terminal illness, yet there is a risk that it could do, for the reasons I have explained. That means that the drafting of clause 2 is not quite tight enough in my view.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Just before the hon. Lady moves on, we may actually have come to a very sensible position based on the other amendments we have been discussing—amendments 399 to 401. I have done a little bit of googling, and diabetes generally is referred to as a “condition”. It might be referred to in other ways as well, but maybe that would be another reason for us all to support amendments 399 to 401.

[Rebecca Paul]

I thank the hon. Lady for that extremely good news. That would definitely be helpful and provide some reassurance.

Amendments 9 and 10 are essential to ensure that those people who are never intended to eligible for assisted dying under this Bill are kept outside of it. Amendment 9 seeks to ensure that it is not just illnesses that can be reversed by treatment, but illnesses where the progress can be controlled or substantially slowed by treatment, that are ineligible—diabetes being the classic case, which can be slowed and controlled by treatment. Amendment 10 further bolsters that by ensuring that treatments that improve prognosis are not disregarded under clause 2(1)(a).

The problem that we have with clause 2 in its current form is that it fails to distinguish between those who are truly at the end of their life and those who only become terminal if they do not access treatment. There is no requirement for a person to be receiving medical care when their prognosis is assessed, which means that many manageable but irreversible conditions—like diabetes, potentially, and chronic kidney disease—could qualify as terminal if treatment is stopped. Let us take the example of someone with type 1 diabetes, like my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool), who tabled these amendments. If she were to stop taking her insulin, she might meet the criteria for terminal illness under the Bill and qualify for an assisted death—I mean, I certainly hope she would not. Without treatment, type 1 diabetes could arguably be an inevitably progressive and irreversible condition that would result in death within weeks or months.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

I agree very strongly with the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for Spen Valley and for Penistone and Stocksbridge, and I hope that the Committee can later return to the state of palliative care in this country.

I underline that the matter of the six-month prognosis was not some minor detail on Second Reading; rather, it was a central plank of the arguments made by those who said that we should pass the Bill because its safeguards were the toughest of any assisted dying law in the world. It is less than three months since my hon. Friends spoke those words, and yet we are already discussing an amendment that would remove the six-month prognosis.

[Kim Leadbeater]

We need to be fair to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, who has said that he will not press the amendment to a Division. Indeed, it would not be something that I would support if he did do so, for the reasons that my hon. Friend has stated. I also think that we need to give him credit for ensuring that the voices of people with neurodegenerative conditions, such as MND, Parkinson’s and Huntingdon’s, are heard. They are an important part of this debate, whatever our views might be on the tightness that is needed in the Bill.

[Naz Shah]

I thank my hon. Friend, and my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge, for making it clear that they would not vote for the amendment. I also thank the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough for bringing forward an amendment that discusses those issues. However, whether it is withdrawn or not, it is an amendment that we are debating and talking to.

The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, who tabled the amendment, no doubt feels very strongly that the conditions of patients with neurodegenerative diseases make a case for relaxing the six-month prognosis to 12. There may well be a good case for doing so, but we can only consider the case for extending the prognosis to 12 months because of the challenges created by neurodegenerative diseases if we have first considered that extremely complex subject.

We cannot say that the Committee has studied the difficult subject of neurodegenerative diseases and how they would affect the administration of the Bill. We have not heard from witnesses on the subject, and we have not been able to ask them questions. We did solicit evidence on whether neurodegenerative diseases would affect the ability to self-administer lethal drugs, but we have not had time to study the written evidence.

I appreciate that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough is not going to press the amendment to a Division, which leaves some of what I wrote earlier obsolete. I appreciate the hon. Member’s efforts. We are sent here by our constituents to represent them to the best of our ability. I certainly try to do that, and I know my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley always tries to do that—I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough and all others are trying to do that. We vow to represent our constituents, and had the amendment gone to a Division I would not have been able to support it, simply because we cannot make those difficult decisions without being properly informed. We cannot make up our minds to change the Bill because of a complex set of diseases.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Actually, there is nothing in the Bill that suggests that. We can only imagine and try to empathise as much as we possibly can with any person who has been given a diagnosis of six months to live. In that six-month process, they might not wait; as my hon. Friend, who is a doctor himself, has said, this is about autonomy. They might not wait until they get to a position where there is a lot of suffering; they might not wait to see those six months out. They might decide they do not want to take that risk, when actually they might have lived another 15 years, another year or another two years. That is the point of this amendment.

[Kim Leadbeater]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech and it is good to have this debate. May I ask her opinion on two things? One is that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud has alluded to, the research around the world shows that between 30% and 40% of people who sign up for assisted death never actually do it, because they do get better or because the treatment makes their condition manageable—or because they have a death in a different way. What are her thoughts on that? The other thing to point out is the number of people who we know, sadly, are taking their own lives because they are terminally ill at the moment. I go back to the point that I make quite regularly: no one is monitoring that—

[The Chair]

Order. As I said before, these are interventions seeking clarification. They are not mini-speeches.

[Naz Shah]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. If we take that 30% to 40% figure, and the figure—she might correct me if I am wrong here, and I am happy to be corrected—that there are about 600 people on average going to Dignitas, for example—

[Kim Leadbeater]

It is people taking their own lives.

[Naz Shah]

Sorry—would my hon. Friend like to intervene?

[Kim Leadbeater]

Just to clarify, my understanding is that it is between 600 and 700 people who take their own lives; it is suicide.

[Naz Shah]

If we take that number, then that 30% or 40% who do not take that decision is maybe a few hundred people. However, the truth from Professor Sleeman’s evidence is that we are talking about thousands of people who are misdiagnosed every single year. She was talking about 3,516 who lived longer than expected. Yes, I recognise and value my hon. Friend’s comment that 30% or 40% of people do not take up assisted dying, but—perhaps I will talk about this when I move on to the next amendment—there is also a risk. If we go back to the Bill promoter’s intention to make the wording tighter, then surely this is a safeguard that she would support, just to ensure that we are making it as tight as we possibly can.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

Actually, it was the other way around and I am happy to provide a reference to the right hon. Gentleman. Nine cases found lack of capacity, but still not in the best interest. One of the girls was 19 years old. The judge found that they lacked capacity to make decisions about their treatment. The question of whether they had the capacity to decide to end their life is completely different and not something we have asked judges to rule on before. The judge’s ruling clearly implied the capacity to refuse force-feeding even if it resulted in their death. I am happy to provide the references for that. It was against their best interest to force-feed them. Tragically, in nine of the 10 cases the judges accepted that that would inevitably lead to the deaths of those young girls.

My hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has repeatedly stressed that her Bill is modelled on the Death with Dignity law in Oregon.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Actually, I have not said that.

[The Chair]

Order. With the greatest respect to Members, this is not a dialogue; this is a debate. This is not chit-chat. It is a very serious issue and interventions of that nature are not helpful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

On a point of order, Mr Dowd. If something is said that we know not to be correct, what should we do?

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Member invites me to suggest that I think it would be possible to draw a safe safeguard. I do not. I think that one month is better than six months, because with one month we can have more accuracy and doctors are more genuinely right when they say that someone is close to death at that point, while six months is much more inaccurate and 12 months is notoriously inaccurate. If we restrict the Bill by using a time limit, that limit should be as close to death as possible in my view.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Does the hon. Member agree that if we were to reduce it to one month, there would be absolutely no way to have the robust process set out in the Bill—or, indeed, I would argue, to have any sort of robust process?

[Danny Kruger]

I accept that, which is why amendment 282 is probing only. It is trying to demonstrate the point. I recognise that even the expedited process is likely to take up to a month to get through, so that would be difficult. Nevertheless, if our intention is to restrict this to people who are literally in their last days, which is frequently what we hear, I think it would be appropriate to restrict the time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I am just talking about the amendment to reduce the time from six months to one month. I will come on to the issue of eating and drinking in a second.

As amendment 282 would reduce the time within which the person is expected to die from six months to one month, it would also limit the number of people with a terminal illness who would be eligible for assisted dying under this legislation. Furthermore, there may be very challenging workability issues in delivering a service within one month, given the other time-dependent safeguards elsewhere in the Bill.

Amendment 51 would remove the requirement for the patient to have a six-month prognosis to be defined as “terminally ill”. If agreed to, it would expand the pool of people eligible for lawful assistance to voluntarily end their own life beyond those with a life expectancy of six months or less. In other words, it would remove the timeframe requirement of when death can be reasonably be expected.

Amendment 234 would widen eligibility to include cases of neurodegenerative diseases, illnesses or medical conditions where a person is reasonably expected to die within 12 months. Matters such as this are for the Committee, and ultimately for Parliament, to decide, but it is clear that the effect of the amendment would be to broaden the number of people eligible for lawful assistance to voluntarily end their own life under this legislation.

Amendment 10 would provide that, if treatment exists for a person’s progressive illness, disease or medical condition that alters the overall prognosis of that person’s condition, they are not terminally ill and would not be eligible for assisted dying services.

Amendment 402 would exclude a person who would not otherwise meet the definition of “terminally ill”—namely, being diagnosed with an inevitably progressive illness with six months or less to live—if that person meets that definition as a result of stopping eating or drinking. The effect of the amendment would be to prevent a person from being defined as “terminally ill” as a result of their own actions of stopping eating or drinking, or both. The Government’s analysis suggests that this may also exclude people who are terminally ill under the definitions of the Bill and who are, for various reasons, unwilling or unable to eat or drink. For example, it may include those with conditions such as oesophageal cancers, which could result in their being unable to eat or drink.

Furthermore, it is unclear whether someone who is on intravenous fluids or being fed through a feeding tube would be considered to have stopped eating or drinking under the amendment. I think that addresses the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West, but she is welcome to intervene again if she would like to. The amendment could therefore lead to uncertainty over the person’s eligibility for assistance under the Bill.

The Government have taken a neutral position on the substantive policy questions relevant to how the law in this area could be changed. Questions around the definition of terminal illness and who should be eligible to access voluntary assisted dying under the legislation are matters for the Committee and for Parliament as a whole. However, I hope that these observations are helpful to the Committee in considering the Bill and the amendments tabled by various Members.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Colleagues will be pleased to know that, despite my copious notes, I do not intend to speak for very long, because I believe we have had a very thorough and robust debate on these issues. The Minister makes a valuable point on amendment 402, which I do not think anyone else raised. Coincidentally, it relates to the person in the Public Gallery this morning, whose mum had a horrible form of cancer and had to have her tongue removed. She would have stopped eating or drinking, but it was not a choice; it was an inevitable result of her condition. She would have been excluded from having an assisted death, which I am sure is not the intention of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West.

We have had an excellent debate and covered a lot of ground. I do not intend to add anything more on this group of amendments. I will only say that if we get a move on, we might be able to get through clause 2 before we close at 5 o’clock.

[Juliet Campbell]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 9, in clause 2, page 1, line 24, after “reversed” insert

“or the progress controlled or substantially slowed”.—(Rebecca Paul.)

This amendment would mean that illness, disease or medical condition etc, the progress of which can be managed or controlled by treatment are not characterised as terminal illness.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Kim Leadbeater Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 26th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Opher]

I feel that the Committee has been through these points quite extensively. There is clearly a disagreement in our beliefs; I accept that, but it is very important to make the Bill as simple as possible, because that is the best safeguard. I believe that the Mental Capacity Act is the right test for whether people have capacity. I reiterate that if there is a doubt in the clinician’s mind, there should be an avenue to get an expert opinion on capacity.

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

Is my hon. Friend reassured, as I am, that although we are focusing here on one conversation, we know from the provisions in the Bill that there will be multiple conversations? There will be a doctor, a second doctor, a psychiatrist, and then oversight by an expert panel. It is not just one assessment of capacity; there are multiple occasions. Does that reassure my hon. Friend, and hopefully other colleagues?

[Dr Opher]

It does reassure me, and I think it should reassure other Committee members. Having eight different people doing a capacity assessment is a very thorough safeguard for capacity. We have gone through the arguments many times in this Committee, but I do not feel that changing the polarity of mental capacity will do anything to make patients in this situation any safer. That is why I do not agree with the amendment. For fear of being interrupted any more, I think I will leave it at that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

I really want someone to explain this point to me: how can it make it more unsafe for patients to state the safeguards explicitly? How can it possibly make it harder, or more dangerous, if we specify what—as the hon. Gentleman said—is good practice currently, which the best doctors already do? I greatly respect him and his medical practice, but is he really saying that every doctor conforms perfectly to the GMC guidance? There are obviously clear problems with the way in which some doctors operate, and this is uncharted territory. Surely for the sake of doctors, as well as patients, it would be appropriate to specify explicitly how they should conduct these assessments, what communications they should make and what patients should be properly informed of. I cannot see how that makes it more dangerous.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I want to concur briefly with my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud; I have done a lot of research into this, believe me. We have the GMC, the British Medical Association and organisations that represent medical practitioners. They have very lengthy codes of conduct and behaviour codes. What we cannot do—and I have tried—is to include all that in the Bill, and we have to be cognisant of that in some of the amendments that we make.

[Danny Kruger]

I challenge the hon. Lady, and I would welcome her response to this: we clearly can specify some things that can be done, which is what my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge has done in half a page with amendment 50, which clarifies explicitly what information the patient should receive and what they should properly understand. How does including this list of pieces of information make the Bill more dangerous for patients?

[Kim Leadbeater]

I am not saying that this amendment would make it more dangerous, but it would overcomplicate things. That is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud was making. We need to have a very clear piece of good law, and I think the Bill already covers the points in amendment 50 and others, which I fully appreciate have been put forward in good faith. It is the clarity of the law that sometimes has to be the focus. I absolutely concur with the hon. Member for East Wiltshire on safeguards, but unfortunately I feel that we will probably never get to a point with the Bill where he is happy with the level of safeguards, and maybe he is prepared to acknowledge that.

[Danny Kruger]

It is unlikely that I would ever vote for an assisted dying law but, if we are going to have one, I want to make it as safe as possible, which we all want. On those terms, in the spirit of a Bill that is going to pass, why not include these specific pieces of information? The hon. Lady says that, while it would not make the Bill more dangerous, it would overcomplicate it. Again, how does it overcomplicate it to add a few clauses specifying information that must be clearly communicated?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sojan Joseph]

I agree that when an independent doctor comes to assess a patient’s capacity and sees them for the very first time, they are more likely to be influenced by the assessment made at the beginning by the doctor who has known them for many days, weeks or months. I agree with my hon. Friend’s argument.

[Kim Leadbeater]

To be clear, the word “independent” means independent of the other doctor, not independent of the patient. The independent doctor could well know the patient. I hope that that clarifies that point.

[Sojan Joseph]

But it could be the other way around. The Bill does not clarify that the second doctor would know the patient at all.

[Kim Leadbeater]

It is not guaranteed.

[Sojan Joseph]

It is not guaranteed. I am grateful for that intervention.

We have talked about training for all registered professionals who will be involved in the capacity assessments. As someone who has carried out that training many times, I draw the attention of the Committee to Dr Rachel—

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Sixteenth sitting)

Kim Leadbeater Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 4th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Stephen Kinnock]

The challenge is the dissonance in how the guidance under the Down Syndrome Act, which is currently very close to publication, is directed towards authorities such as trusts, but there is no coverage around individual doctors. At this stage, without seeing a clear distinction between the two or how it would work for individual doctors, the Department’s concern is that it could create confusion as to the obligations on individual medical practitioners under the 2022 Act. I am obviously open to conversations about how to clear that up, but the lacuna between the authorities and the individual doctors is the problem being flagged by the Department.

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

I take the Minister’s comments on board. Will he agree to a conversation with me and with the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), who tabled amendment 368, to take the discussion forward?

[Stephen Kinnock]

I am happy to have conversations with the hon. Lady and other hon. Members, but as things stand it is not clear to the Department or to me how the proposal would work in practice.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

That is for the wider debate. I call Kim Leadbeater.

[Kim Leadbeater]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. The amendments relate to the initial discussions with medical practitioners, and it is important to highlight that clause 4(1) states:

“No registered medical practitioner is under any duty to raise the subject of the provision of assistance in accordance with this Act with a person.”

However, subsection (2) states that

“nothing in subsection (1) prevents a registered medical practitioner exercising their professional judgement”.

Doctors and healthcare professionals, like any other group of people, hold a range of views on assisted dying. We need only reflect on the oral and written evidence to see that. However, the British Medical Association has a neutral position on assisted dying, and its representatives were very clear when I met them, and in oral evidence to the Committee, that they wanted an opt-in model for doctors to provide assisted dying, as well as the right to decline to carry out activities directly related to assisted dying, for any reason. These requests have therefore been incorporated into the Bill.

The BMA was clear in its submission that it opposes amendments 8, 124 and 276, as well as amendment 342, which we will come to later. It said that adding a prohibition or limiting factors in the Bill would

“create uncertainty and legal risks for doctors, which may inhibit effective doctor/patient communication and understanding.”

It welcomed the Bill’s provision that a doctor is not under a duty to raise assisted dying, which it felt was necessary to avoid any suggestion that doctors have a legal duty to raise it. It was concerned that these amendments would remove that provision, leaving doctors in a position of legal uncertainty. It said:

“If doctors are concerned that they may be legally obliged to raise assisted dying with all potentially eligible patients, this will impact on how, when, and by whom the issue is raised…It is essential that decisions about when and how to discuss assisted dying are made on the basis of what is best for the patient—rather than to avoid legal challenge. All patients deserve to have this important and sensitive conversation with a doctor who is confident, competent and happy to have the discussion…Doctors should be able to talk to patients about all reasonable and legally available options; a provision that limits or hinders open discussion about any aspect of death and dying is likely to be detrimental to patient care. Doctors should be trusted to use their professional judgement to decide when and if a discussion about assisted dying would be appropriate, taking their cue from the patient as they do on all other issues.”

That is the BMA’s position, and I agree.

As Duncan Burton, the chief nursing officer for England, said in oral evidence to the Committee,

“it is clear that there is increasing discussion in society around death and dying, and I think that is important. It is important that we have discussions and support people with their choices at the end of life, so anything we can do to increase that is important.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 41, Q22.]

Dr Ryan Spielvogel from California told us:

“People cannot make informed decisions for themselves if they do not know what their options are. While this is top of mind for all of you and for the doctors…even if this Bill becomes law, the general population is still not going to realise that it is an option.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 105, Q143.]

He strongly advised against not allowing doctors to discuss patient choice, because in his experience that really hampers their ability to take care of patients. Dr Jessica Kaan of End of Life Washington reiterated the point:

“It is a huge burden to put on patients and their loved ones if they have to bring it up themselves. I would highly caution against any sort of language that requires that, because it is just not fair to them. They are already going through so much”.––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 106, Q143.]

In the light of our recent discussions, I draw the Committee’s attention to the current BMA guidelines regarding patient requests for assisted dying. Those guidelines will obviously need updating if the law changes, but they are comprehensive and give us a much greater understanding of the approach that doctors take when speaking to terminally ill patients, as well as what these hugely sensitive conversations look like, which is really important to know.

The BMA guidance addresses situations in which patients make an explicit request for doctors’ assistance in or information about ending their life or hastening their death. I will refer to that guidance now. The guidance advises the doctors to

“Explore the patient’s feelings, emotions and thoughts….It might be helpful to discuss their understanding of their condition or their fears and concerns…If you feel that the patient is depressed or suffering from another mental health condition, or would benefit from more support, therapy or counselling should be offered.”

Doctors are also advised to

“Use the opportunity to address those concerns: you should also investigate whether other practical arrangements could help improve the patient’s quality of life. Involve a colleague: you might like to involve a more experienced colleague—making clear to the patient that this is what you will be doing.”

The guidance also talks about involving other sources of support:

“you might like to seek support and input from other members of the healthcare team, such as a specialist palliative care team, colleagues from mental health, or the chaplaincy or voluntary services.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Lady says that the GMC states that doctors have an obligation to raise the treatment options before them, and I think that she thinks that this is a treatment option. Surely the obligation is on doctors to raise assisted dying in all cases where it may be an option for the patient. Does the hon. Lady agree that doctors should offer assisted dying when that treatment may be appropriate for the patient?

[Kim Leadbeater]

I agree that, under the provisions of the Bill, the doctor will have a duty to lay out options available to the patient, if they meet the eligibility criteria—absolutely. That is the whole purpose of the Bill.

[Danny Kruger]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me a very clear answer. I just want to be totally clear that we understand each other. Is she saying that every doctor facing a terminally ill patient—someone who is eligible under the Bill—should make clear to them that they have the option of an assisted death?

[Kim Leadbeater]

Well, that is the purpose of clause 4: the doctor has to lay out the options available to the patient as long as all the criteria are met.

We can see from the guidance that currently exists that doctors take a very sensitive and patient-centred approach to end-of-life conversations. If the law were to change, that approach would continue with additional training specifically related to assisted dying, as has been discussed. It would also mean that the issues that doctors currently face around discussing assisted dying would be addressed.

As the BMA says, at the moment

“The law does not provide a clear definition of which actions might constitute assisting or encouraging suicide…What if a patient wishes to travel abroad for assisted dying? While the act of travelling abroad for assisted dying is not illegal, assisting, facilitating, or encouraging someone to do so is a criminal offence…doctors need to be aware of the possibility of legal and professional sanctions if they were to do so.”

I imagine that that must create a real sense of jeopardy for doctors. Similarly, the GMC recognises that doctors will face challenges in

“ensuring that patients do not feel abandoned”,

while ensuring that the advice or information that they provide does not encourage or assist a person to end their own life.

These are very difficult conversations for patients and doctors, but by legalising assisted dying in this country we can give clear guidance through a robust legal framework, and create the thorough, transparent process that is currently lacking. These conversations provide a safeguard while the person is still alive. As the former director of public prosecutions, Sir Max Hill, told the Committee,

“In each of the 27 cases I considered, the deceased individual was already dead, and that is when the scrutiny started. The major advantage of the Bill, if I can put it that way, is that that will be reversed, and scrutiny will be before death.” ––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 86, Q111.]

Mark Swindells from the General Medical Council told us:

“We do get inquiries from doctors who are concerned that they are doing the right thing when it might become apparent to them that a patient wants to travel overseas to access assisted dying.” ––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 46, Q36.]

Bringing those conversations out into the open has to be better for the patient and the practitioner.

[Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

With reference to amendment 8, and further to the intervention from the hon. Member for East Wiltshire, can my hon. Friend reflect on the provisions as set out in clause 4(1) and (2), which say that the issue relates to doctors’ professional judgment and that doctors are under no obligation to raise those issues in any situation?

[Kim Leadbeater]

Absolutely. This is about professional judgment, which is what the BMA is really clear about. Doctors have to be able to use their professional judgment. They are not under any obligation to raise the issue, but they are not under any obligation not to raise it. The BMA is really clear about that. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.

I welcome amendments 319 and 320 from my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford and I thank him once again for his positive engagement with the Bill. He raises a very valid point about the initial discussion. While the Bill is very clear that it applies only to terminally ill adults over the age of 18, in that someone would have to be over 18 to make the first declaration, it is not clear that the initial discussion could also not happen with someone under the age of 18.

We should not prohibit open conversations with terminally ill young people and their families, as they create openness, transparency and safeguards and provide much-needed support at what most of us can only imagine must be the most difficult time of anyone’s life. However, I think it should be made clear that the actual assisted dying process cannot be embarked upon unless someone is over the age of 18. I have taken advice about how best to incorporate that into the Bill from a drafting perspective. As a result, I have tabled amendment 418, which applies to clause 5, and states that regulations must provide that the first declaration contain, among other things,

“a declaration that they have had a preliminary discussion with a registered medical practitioner, that they were aged 18 or over when they had that discussion, and that they understand the information referred to in section 4(4)(a) to (c) that was provided during that discussion”.

As such, the aim of amendments 319 and 320 is achieved. I hope that that is to the satisfaction of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford.

With regard to amendment 339, I have listened very carefully to the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford, who tabled it, and the evidence from Mencap chief executive Dan Scorer, who suggested that for terminally ill people with learning disabilities

“that initial conversation has to be incredibly well supported and structured…the person should have accessible information in advance of that discussion so that they are fully informed about all their rights in terms of treatment options at end of life”. ––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2025; c. 280.]

I absolutely agree with the intention of the amendment. I am seeking advice on the legal and technical implications, as I believe there is some tightening up that would need to be done around some of the phrasing, such as the concept of “sufficient time” or what would constitute a “supporter”. I therefore cannot support the amendment as it stands, but I am very happy to look at ways to take this forward and to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the amendment, which, quite rightly, gives special consideration to people with autism and learning disabilities. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge is also considering tabling amendments that would have a similar effect; perhaps we could all meet together.

I also reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford that I am considering the involvement of people with learning disabilities, and groups representing them, in the development of guidance and training on assisted dying and end-of-life conversations. As Dan Scorer said,

“people with a learning disability should be involved in the development of that guidance” ––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2025; c. 281.]

I absolutely agree.

Amendment 368, tabled by the right hon. Member for East Hampshire, has been discussed this morning. I sought advice about it as it was new to me. I believe that no statutory guidance has yet been published under the Down Syndrome Act, so we lack detail. That Act resulted from another private Member’s Bill; I am sure we can all agree what an excellent process this is for making important changes to the law. As the Minister said, the amendment is likely to be unworkable for doctors so I cannot support it. I would, however, be very happy to discuss the thoughts of the right hon. Member for East Hampshire and look at how we can meet his objectives—possibly through an addition to new clause 8, which is about the duty to consult and the Secretary of State consulting with the Equality and Human Rights Commission. At that point, the specific needs of not just people with disabilities but those with other protected characteristics will be represented. Alternatively, we could look at the codes of practice in clause 30.

I am happy to take those discussions forward and may even be able to speak to the right hon. Member for East Hampshire at the drop-in session he is doing this week with the National Down Syndrome Policy Group, ahead of Down’s Syndrome Awareness Week.

[Kit Malthouse]

As the hon. Lady will know, a number of our proceedings have been misinterpreted, shall we say, on social media. For complete clarity, with regard to the initial conversation, the Bill leaves to the discretion of the doctor whether it is appropriate to raise the matter, given their knowledge of the patient. They have no obligation to raise it. If the patient themselves indicates a wish to raise the matter, then a doctor is under an obligation to lay out all the options available to that patient. We would not want to leave the outside world with the impression that, in all circumstances, the doctor is obliged to raise the option of assisted dying. It is only when they professionally think it is appropriate or if the patient raises it with them.

[Kim Leadbeater]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. As I have said, the BMA has been very clear that doctors should use their professional judgment. For example, if they had a patient whom they knew to be deeply religious and who had no interest whatsoever in an assisted death, it is highly unlikely that they would raise the possibility. It is up to them to use their professional judgment to accommodate the wishes of the patient. It has to be a patient-centred approach.

[Danny Kruger]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kim Leadbeater]

I am done.

[Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)]

We have had a good debate on the amendments in this group. I do not intend to push amendment 278 to a vote, and I have nothing further to add to my previous remarks. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 8, in clause 4, page 2, line 16, leave out from “practitioner” to end of line 20 and insert

“shall raise the subject of the provision of assistance in accordance with this Act with a person who has not indicated to that or another registered medical practitioner that they wish to seek assistance to end their own life”.—(Daniel Francis.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

I just want to let the hon. Gentleman and the Committee know that I met my hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet last night, and I am delighted to support her amendment 108.

[Danny Kruger]

I am very pleased to hear that. That is very encouraging news, because I have been concerned that the hon. Lady was resting her case on amendments to clause 12, which would not require a palliative care specialist. I am grateful to her for intervening to inform us of that.

Nevertheless, we need to go further. The amendments in the name of the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) would require that a specialist, rather than just a GP, leads the initial assessment. The fact is that despite their enormous range of expertise, general practitioners are not qualified or confident in making prognoses of terminal illness. The written evidence from the Association for Palliative Medicine of Great Britain and Ireland cited a 2021 paper showing that over half of GPs were not consistent in how they applied their predictions to different patients. It is important that specialists in the relevant conditions should be involved in these assessments so that patients receive expert input with a lower risk of error.

It is significant that, during the Second Reading debate on 29 November, the House was unanimous in its appreciation of, and praise for, palliative care specialists. It seems strange that their expertise should not be considered essential to a terminally ill person’s consideration for an assisted death. When we look at other countries, we see that it is not an exceptional safeguard. South Australia’s Voluntary Assisted Dying Act 2021 specifies:

“Either the coordinating medical practitioner or each consulting medical practitioner must have relevant expertise and experience in the disease, illness or medical condition”—

we are not using that any more—

“expected to cause the death of the person being assessed.”

I urge the Committee to reflect on the South Australia model, which is good in this regard.

I turn to amendment 53, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, and amendment 275, in the name of the hon. Member for Sunderland Central. The Bill currently requires doctors to discuss “available” palliative care options, but that may limit what patients are told. Amendment 275 would provide that patients should be informed of “all appropriate” palliative care alternatives, even if they are not readily available in their local area. We do not want patients choosing assisted dying simply because of unequal geographic provision of palliative care making them unaware of alternatives that could improve their quality of life.

I would go even further in support of amendment 53, which hits the nail on the head. Fundamentally, we have always said that assisted dying should be available only to people who palliative care cannot help. That is what amendment 53 entails: it states that assisted dying should be available only for people for whom the relevant palliative care is actually an option and, if they decline it, that would be their choice.

Finally, I will speak to amendments 425 and 426 in my name, which express the need for a proper multidisciplinary team at the right stage of the assisted dying process. The hon. Member for Spen Valley has emphasised the importance of multidisciplinary teams, and I welcome everything she said. It is very good to get her agreement, through the amendments that she has tabled, that two doctors working alone are not enough to protect and support every patient. I welcome that recognition.

Amendments to clause 12 attempt to fill this gap by introducing the expertise of a psychiatrist and a social worker, but they do not fulfil the role of a multidisciplinary panel. Rachel Clarke, one of the witnesses who told us to consider multidisciplinary assessments, has written subsequent to the amendments being tabled: “A ‘judge plus’ panel”—there will not actually be a judge, so perhaps we should call it a “lawyer plus” panel—

“is not an MDT…the panel’s scrutiny comes only at the end of the process, not at the beginning, when a patient first asks for the intervention of assisted dying. Yet this is a moment of peak vulnerability.”

We will get on to the question of whether a judicial panel should replace a High Court judge, but I emphasise very strongly that the introduction of this process is not the equivalent of having a proper multidisciplinary team considering the application for an assisted death at the appropriate moment.

As the Association for Palliative Medicine said last week, the Bill

“does not align with the standard multi-professional team…decision-making process used across the health service.”

It said that the panel is too distant from the patient and comes too late in the process. It said that the Bill would be stronger if the initial assessments were

“carried within a multi-professional team model”.

It is at the stage we are debating here—in the initial assessments—that the MDT needs to apply. For the record, if it has not been properly noted before, I also state that when the hon. Member for Spen Valley quoted Dr Sarah Cox on the importance of multidisciplinary teams, Dr Cox was not endorsing clause 12, but explicitly arguing for earlier introduction of the multidisciplinary process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

To be clear on the multidisciplinary approach, the point that I was making in that contribution was that that happens already. We are misrepresenting what goes on in current practice with terminally ill patients if we say that there is not a multidisciplinary approach, as indeed various witnesses told us. It is important to acknowledge that.

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right that that is what witnesses told us, but we need to ensure that it happens in all cases; the purpose of these amendments is to ensure that good practice is universal. In the case of assisted dying, bad practice would be terrible. Of course, good doctors seek the guidance of others and do not operate in isolation, but the Bill would allow them to do so. It is important to ensure that the system lives up to the good practice that she refers to.

Committee members will be glad to hear that I am not going to rehearse the arguments about capacity and coercion, but those concerns are why it is important to have a multidisciplinary team at an early stage. The Committee has rejected all attempts to strengthen the capacity test, but it could at least allow a psychiatrist to have an earlier role in the process of checking for capacity. We heard from multiple witnesses about the importance of doing that, and that is what National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance states. As the hon. Lady said, it is good practice, so as Professor House said in his evidence to us, it would not be “a terribly radical thing” to do it.

On coercion, as the social worker Jess Carrington wrote to us:

“The only people who are comprehensively trained to recognise signs of abuse, in particular, coercive control, are social workers.”

According to research by Dr David Ross, doctors suspect less than 5% of cases of elder abuse. I will not rehearse the arguments around coercion, but I hope that the Committee will note that the only way—or the best way; it will not be foolproof—to ensure that coercion is spotted is by having a social worker at the very beginning of the process.

I think that is enough from me, Mr Efford—I am sure you agree.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)]

I rise in support of the amendments, especially amendments 342 and 425. We have discussed various aspects of the Bill, especially capacity, coercion and medical practices, under many previous amendments. As somebody who worked as a mental health nurse for many years, and who worked as part of a multidisciplinary team, I think that amendments 342 and 425 are some of the most important.

Amendment 342 talks about the preliminary conversation with the medical practitioner with whom the patient makes contact. Do we not think that the doctor who knows most about that patient is the best person to have that preliminary discussion? They will have the most information about them. When the patient, who has gone through so much difficulty, goes to their doctor or to a GP who knows them well and says, “I would like to choose the assisted dying pathway,” would that doctor then say, “I do not want to discuss this. Somebody else will.”?

[Kim Leadbeater]

Is my hon. Friend not concerned about the concept of conscientious objection? The BMA strongly opposes amendment 342, because it does not think doctors should be obligated to have that initial conversation if they do not want to.

[Sojan Joseph]

There are other people who support this concept, and they are the people who will be having the conversation—we have both sides of the argument. I believe that the best person to have that preliminary discussion would be the doctor who knows about that patient the most—about their circumstances, prognosis, family situation and pain. We talk about compassionate care, but where is the compassion in here? I am not saying that another doctor would deny that—but I am talking about compassion. Someone going through the most difficult time in their life would have the confidence to talk to the person who knows the most about them, which is why I fully support that the initial discussion should happen with them. I am not saying that they should say yes or no, but they should be talking about the care provisions and options available to the patient. Amendment 342 is one of the most important amendments we will debate.

I will move on to amendment 425. When I tabled amendment 1, my thinking was that a psychiatrist should be involved in these discussions, but I think amendment 425 will safeguard most of the concerns we have discussed in previous sittings. Amendment 425 talks about a “multidisciplinary team” and having a psychiatrist involved as well. Written evidence was sent to us on 29 January by the Royal College of General Practitioners, which recommended that a separate pathway that

“covered every stage of the process would ensure healthcare professionals of multiple disciplines…who wanted to do so could still opt in to provide assisted dying, but this would be arranged through a different pathway.”

The hon. Member for Sunderland Central spoke earlier about how patients may be going through many multidisciplinary teams already, but it could be that none of those multidisciplinary teams have talked with them about assisted dying. They could have been pharmacists or nurses talking about the patient’s care—not assisted dying. We are talking about setting up a multidisciplinary team with a mental health nurse, doctor and social worker who can look in detail at evidence of the patient’s capacity, whether they are choosing it because they feel they are a burden, and whether there is any coercion. I think that is a safeguard for most of the concerns we have discussed in previous sessions. I would love to see a psychiatrist involved, because psychiatrists deal with some of the most challenging patients, including those with suicidal thoughts, on a day-to-day basis. They are the most experienced people to carry out a capacity assessment and, if they are a part of the multidisciplinary team, it will safeguard the Bill.

I strongly support amendment 425 and I urge Members to consider it. It will reassure many people who are concerned about some of the discussions. I know it also talks about giving power to the Secretary of State to formalise who should be part of the multidisciplinary team, which would be a discussion for later. I thank the Committee for giving me the opportunity to speak in support of the amendment.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Seventeenth sitting)

Kim Leadbeater Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 4th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd.

When we broke at 11.25 am, I was talking about amendment 108. Clause 4(4) sets out that a registered medical practitioner who conducts the preliminary discussion on assisted dying must, as part of that discussion, explain and discuss

“the person’s diagnosis and prognosis…any treatment available and the likely effect of it…any available palliative, hospice or other care, including symptom management and psychological support.”

Amendment 108 would supplement that with a requirement for the registered medical practitioner also to offer to refer the person to a specialist in palliative, hospice or other such care for the purpose of further discussion.

The amendment would add an additional level of specificity to the preliminary discussion on palliative, hospice or other care, but would not in itself place a duty on the registered medical practitioner to make such a referral, or on the person to accept it. In considering whether the amendment is required, the Committee may wish to note that the General Medical Council’s good medical practice already requires doctors, when providing clinical care, to refer a patient to another suitably qualified practitioner when this serves their needs.

As the Committee is aware, the Government have worked with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley on several amendments to ensure that the Bill is legally and operationally workable and reflects her policy objectives. Amendments 183 and 424 are two such amendments.

The purpose of amendment 183 is to emphasise, not change, the existing provisions in the Bill that provide that the preliminary discussion held with the person by a registered medical practitioner must not discuss assisted dying in isolation. Rather, the discussion must reference the matters contained in clause 4(4), including

(a) the person’s diagnosis and prognosis…any treatment available and the likely effect of it…any available palliative, hospice or other care, including symptom management and psychological support.”

Amendment 424 seeks to clarify the meaning of “preliminary discussion” in clause 40, to align that with the description of the discussions in subsections (3) and (4) of clause 4. It is a drafting change. As per subsections (3) and (4), a preliminary discussion takes place between a person seeking the provision of assistance in accordance with the Bill and a medical practitioner, about the requirements that need to be met for such assistance to be provided. The preliminary discussion must include

“the person’s diagnosis and prognosis…any treatment available and the likely effect of it…any available palliative, hospice or other care, including symptom management and psychological support.”

Amendment 425 would introduce a requirement that a person seeking assistance under the Bill is referred to a multidisciplinary team to consider support and care for the person. The Secretary of State may provide regulations to determine what kind of professionals should make up such a team, but the amendment would require that at a minimum each team should include a medical practitioner or nurse, a social worker and a psychiatrist. The obligation to refer to the multidisciplinary team would apply each and every time

“a person indicates to a registered medical practitioner their wish to seek assistance to end their own life in accordance with this Act”,

so there could be multiple referrals. Finally, I note that the amendment might have wider resource implications, including for social workers.

Together, amendments 53 and 54 propose changes to clause 7—rather than clause 4, which we have been considering so far today—the effect of which would be that in carrying out the first doctor’s assessment, the co-ordinating doctor must, in addition to the other requirements, be satisfied that the person has relevant and available palliative care options. As such, the amendments would mean that people are eligible for assistance to voluntarily end their own lives only when they have relevant and available palliative care options. The amendments would create an additional criterion, which may reduce the number of people able to receive an assisted death, linked to the availability of palliative care services to any given individual.

Amendment 426 would prevent the co-ordinating doctor from finalising the first assessment process until they had received confirmation from a multidisciplinary team—as set out in amendment 425—that the person seeking assistance to end their own life had met with the multidisciplinary team. The Committee may wish to note that under the amendment there would be no requirement on the multidisciplinary team to provide that confirmation in a given timeframe. That might lead to delays in the co-ordinating doctor being able to make their statement and onward referral.

Amendment 286 would remove the requirements in paragraphs (a) to (c) of clause 9(2) and insert three new requirements. The three new conditions require the assessing doctor, for both the first and second assessment, to consult specialists in relation to the person’s diagnosis and prognosis, any treatments available and the likely effect of those treatments, and any palliative, hospice or other care, including symptom management and psychological support.

The Committee may wish to note that, as drafted, amendment 286 might have some unintended consequences. That is because by replacing clause 9(2)(a), (b) and (c), it would remove the words

“explain to and discuss with the person being assessed”

at clause 9(2)(b). Consequently, the amendment would remove the requirement for the assessing doctor to have a discussion with the person about the factors currently set out in clause 9(2)(b). The assessing doctors would also not be required to examine the person and their medical records, and to make other inquiries as they consider appropriate.

The amendment could also lead to a significant loss of essential discussion between the assessing doctors and the person seeking assisted dying. The removal of clause 9(2)(b) would eliminate the requirement to explain and discuss the diagnosis and prognosis, treatment options and palliative care. Additionally, the amendment would remove the requirement to discuss the person’s wishes in the event of complications arising in connection with the self-administration of an approved substance, which may be seen as important for fully informed decision making.

I thank the Committee for its attention.

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

I will try to keep my comments as brief as possible because we have had another very thorough discussion. First, my amendment 424 is, as the Minister said, a simple drafting change in clause 40 that confirms that “preliminary discussion” means a discussion as per clause 4(3).

Amendment 275 from my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central would, in many circumstances, broaden the scope of the conversation that the doctor would have with the patient, and I am happy to support it.

I am also happy to support the very sensible amendment 108 from my hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington). It is perfectly acceptable to ask the doctor to offer to refer the patient to a specialist, as they would probably do in most cases anyway, but the amendment is for clarity.

I refer colleagues to the comprehensive comments on my amendment 183 earlier in proceedings, and also to the support of the British Medical Association. Following Second Reading, I listened carefully to Members’ concerns about the possibility of doctors only discussing assisted dying with patients. Even though the Bill states that that cannot be the case, for the avoidance of any doubt the amendment emphasises that the initial discussion mentioned in clause 4(3) may not be conducted without also explaining and discussing the matters mentioned in subsection (4). Accordingly, such a preliminary discussion may not be conducted in isolation from an explanation of and discussion about the matters mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c) of that subsection—that is, doctors cannot discuss the option of assisted dying in isolation but only in conjunction with discussion about all other available and appropriate treatment.

Indeed, Andrew Green of the BMA told us that

“some patients find it very difficult to bring up sensitive subjects with their doctors, even when those are the most important thing on their mind.”

He asked us to

“please do not pass legislation that makes it harder for doctors to understand their patients.” ––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 42, Q24.]

That concludes my remarks.

[Danny Kruger]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 270, in clause 4, page 2, line 25, at end insert—

“(3A) Before conducting a preliminary discussion under subsection (2) the registered medical practitioner must ensure that the person has no remediable suicide risk factors which pose a significant risk to their life.”—(Danny Kruger.)

This amendment requires that the doctor ensures that there are no remediable suicide risk factors before proceeding to the initial discussion about assisted dying.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

I am happy to have that discussion, to better understand how it might all work in practice.

If amendment 415 is agreed to, it will mean that an assessing doctor making an assessment under subsection (2) must first ensure the provision of adjustments for language and literacy barriers, including the use of interpreters. As with amendment 414, the Committee may want to note the existing standards that all medical practitioners must uphold, which include requirements for the provision of adjustments for language and literacy barriers.

Amendments 416 and 417 would amend clause 30, which states that the Secretary of State may issue codes of practice on a number of matters, including on arrangements for ensuring effective communication and the use of interpreters. The amendments would impose a duty on the Secretary of State to issue one or more codes of practice in connection with arrangements for ensuring effective communication, including the use of interpreters, and to do so within six months of the passing of the Act. The requirement to issue any such code of practice within six months may prove unworkable. Under clause 30, it would be necessary to consult on the code of practice, make regulations to allow for the code of practice to come into force, have the regulations approved by both Houses of Parliament and then issue the code of practice, all within a six-month period after the passing of the Act.

As I have said, the Government will continue to remain neutral on whether or how the law in this area should change. As I have made clear, that is a matter for the Committee and for Parliament as a whole. However, I hope that these observations are helpful to members of the Committee in considering the Bill and the amendments tabled to it.

[Kim Leadbeater]

On amendment 413, from the right hon. Member from Plaid Cymru—with apologies, I will not embarrass myself by trying to pronounce the wonderful name of her constituency—I am very sensitive to issues around devolution. We have had many conversations about it, which I am very happy to continue. The Minister has confirmed, as I understand it, the issue around the Welsh language, in that it would be covered by the Welsh language legislation, which states that individuals in Wales

“should be able to live their lives through the medium of the Welsh language if they choose to do so.”

I am very supportive of that. I am also happy to continue those conversations, where necessary, with the Minister.

I turn to amendments 414 and 415. I think several Members of the Committee have had the same message from my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich, who was clearly struggling to get here on time. I, too, would be happy to move them in his name. They seem very sensible amendments, and I am happy to support them. Along with the GMC’s “Good medical practice”, which sets out the principles, values and standards of professional behaviour expected of doctors, it is a belt-and-braces approach to an issue that is very important, for reasons that several hon. Members have set out.

I cannot support amendments 416 and 417, however, because the timeframe that they would impose would not fit with the rest of the Bill. In reference to the two-year implementation period, that would just not be workable or possible.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I will not press amendment 413, because I anticipate further conversations on these matters.

Amendment 414 agreed to.

Amendment proposed: 285, in clause 4, page 2, line 28, leave out paragraphs (a) to (c) and insert—

“(a) the person’s diagnosis and prognosis, in consultation with a specialist in the relevant illness, disease or medical condition,

(b) any treatment available and the likely effect of it, in consultation with a specialist in the provision of such treatment,

(c) any palliative, hospice or other care, including symptom management and psychological support, in consultation with a specialist in palliative care.”—(Naz Shah.)

This amendment ensures that a specialist carries out the assessment of the patient, the treatment options available and the palliative care options available, since these may not be known to a doctor coordinating an assisted death.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

I will speak to this group of provisions as one, given that amendments 71 to 80 are consequential on new clause 4. The purpose of these provisions is to create a new statutory body—the assisted dying agency—which has the purpose of co-ordinating requests from people to be considered for assisted dying. The provisions provide for various functions and duties of the agency, including assigning a co-ordinating doctor and an independent doctor to a person seeking assistance to end their own life.

The agency would be responsible for accepting referrals, replacing registered medical practitioners with the roles of assigned co-ordinating doctor and assigned independent doctor, and receiving and recording declarations, statements and cancellations made by co-ordinating doctors, independent doctors and those receiving assistance under the Bill.

That would be a change from the current provisions in the Bill, which place a number of those duties on the individual co-ordinating doctor and independent doctor. One effect of the proposed new clause is that a new agency would have to be established by the Government. If it passed, we would have to work to assess how that might be possible in practice.

I hope my brief remarks are helpful to Committee members in considering the Bill, the amendment and the new clause.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I have nothing to add, other than to agree with the hon. Member for East Wiltshire; I do not think any of us on the Committee are keen on the implementation of the assisted dying agency.

[Danny Kruger]

Will the hon. Member give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sean Woodcock]

Amendment 345 was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon); I referred earlier to her record in this area. The amendment would ensure that medical practitioners record and document preliminary discussions with a patient about assisted dying and provide the patient with that information. I welcome the amendments from the Bill’s promoter to make records of the first and second doctor’s assessments. Those safeguard patients and the process. It is important that we have transparency and clarity on such weighty decisions.

Several people raised in their written evidence the importance of good documentation. These amendments meet those concerns. I assume that not including a record of the preliminary discussion is merely an oversight by the Bill’s promoter. The amendment seeks to do what she says she wants to do—protect patients and doctors—by making records of the discussions.

In written evidence TIAB55, Professor Allan House suggested that

“It should be required as it is in all other areas of medical practice, that specific written records are kept of this assessment and of procedures followed to end life—not just the substances used. The written record to be included in the person’s medical record so that it is available to the Medical Examiner. Records also to be available at appraisal to enable assessment of the quality of the process.”

[Kim Leadbeater]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. Will he take note of my new clause 19, which is in this group and states that the preliminary discussion has to be recorded?

[Sean Woodcock]

I am grateful for that intervention, which goes to the heart of my next question: why would we record and document later conversations, but not the initial one? That conversation could be one in which coercion takes place and without a record of it happening, patients and doctors are at risk. We have acknowledged that patients can be influenced by their doctors, whether consciously or unconsciously. We also noted how certain groups lack trust in the healthcare system. Dr Jamilla Hussain, in her written evidence, TIAB252, explained that the various inequalities faced by certain communities

“contribute to mistrust in health and social care services”

and that

“minority patients frequently express fear of having their lives shortened by healthcare providers, especially at the end-of-life with medication such as morphine and midazolam.”

In situations where patients are uncertain or lack trust in medical professionals, a record of the initial conversation is important to protect everyone involved. As Professor House stated, documenting the process and making records is common medical practice, so why would we differ here? We must protect patients and doctors, and making clear records at every stage of the process contributes to that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

I think it reflects the fact that, as the Committee has agreed, we are in uncharted territory on a whole range of issues here. I think it is best to think through the implications of every amendment. If it passes, every clause of the Bill will have to be assessed for its potential impact. I have other questions about amendment 297 in my notes. Does it intend to capture only the consultations between the co-ordinating doctor and the patient, or does it intend also to capture conversations with relevant persons other than the person seeking an assisted death? That is not clear from the amendment. What I am saying is that it poses more questions than it answers.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I might be wrong, but my understanding is that a patient could ask for access to their medical records at any point. On the basis that new clause 19 requires the doctor to record a preliminary discussion, presumably, if a patient wanted to see that record, they would be able to.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I agree with my hon. Friend on that point. As I stated at the start of my comments, officials have worked with her on new clause 19, which I think goes a long way to clearing up many of the points that have been raised, including hers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

The Government have worked with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley on new clause 19. The Government’s view is that if the Committee accepts it, then that new clause will provide the level of robustness and resilience that the system requires. The Government are not convinced that, on its own, the amendment that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West is talking about would provide the level of robustness and resilience we would be looking for. As things stand, the choice has been made to work with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley on new clause 19, and we are satisfied that that would provide us with the operational integrity we need.

Amendment 302 would require the independent doctor to provide details of the way in which the second assessment was conducted, alongside a written transcript of any consultation to the relevant chief medical officer and the person’s GP. The independent doctor would be required to maintain a copy of that record to provide to the relevant medical examiner.

As I have mentioned, in executing our duty to ensure that the Bill, if passed, is legally robust and workable, the Government have worked with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley on new clause 19. The new clause would require a practitioner to include a record of a preliminary discussion having taken place under clause 4. The record of the preliminary discussion must be included in the person’s medical records. Where the medical practitioner is a member of the person’s GP practice, they must make such a record in the person’s medical records as soon as practicable. Where the medical practitioner is not a member of the person’s GP practice, they must, as soon as practicable, provide a written record of the preliminary discussion to a medical practitioner at the person’s GP practice, who will then be required by the new clause to include it in the person’s medical records as soon as practicable.

The Committee may wish to note that amendment 424 would add a definition of “preliminary discussion” to the Bill that would make it clear what discussion medical practitioners would be required by law to record.

That concludes my remarks on this group. I thank the Committee for its attention.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I rise to speak briefly to my new clause 19, which refers to the recording of the preliminary discussion. It would require the practitioner to include in the medical records of the person in question a record of a preliminary discussion under clause 4. The initial discussion with the patient is very important and, as such, should be recorded in their records. I hope that colleagues agree and will support the new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

I therefore support amendment 341, which seeks to remove the requirement to refer and replace it with an obligation to direct the patient to where they can obtain information and have the preliminary discussion. The amendment is in line with the written evidence we have received, so I hope that some Committee members will join me in supporting it.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I thank the hon. Member for those important points. I reassure her, and possibly other Committee members, that I am minded to support amendment 341.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

Amendment 412 would remove the duty in clause 4(5) on a registered medical practitioner who is unwilling or unable to conduct the preliminary discussion to, upon request, refer the person to another practitioner whom the first practitioner believes is willing and able to conduct that discussion. Guidance for medical professionals requires that, where a practitioner objects to performing a procedure, they must refer the patient to a practitioner who can meet their needs.

Amendment 341 removes the duty on a registered medical practitioner who is unwilling or unable to conduct the preliminary discussion to, upon request, refer the person to another registered medical practitioner whom they believe is willing and able to conduct that discussion. The amendment requires the registered medical practitioner who is unwilling or unable to conduct the preliminary discussion with the person to instead ensure that the person is directed to where they can obtain information and have the preliminary discussion.

New clause 13 would introduce a requirement for the Secretary of State to create, via regulations, an independent information and referral service for individuals who are, or may be, eligible under the Bill for assisted dying services. The accompanying amendment 338 would require a registered medical practitioner who is unwilling or unable to conduct the preliminary discussion to direct the person, upon that person’s request, to another registered medical practitioner or to the information and referral service, as set out in the new clause. The effect of this amendment is to remove the obligation in clause 4(5) for the registered medical practitioner to refer the person to another registered medical practitioner whom the first practitioner believes is willing and able to conduct the initial discussion. This amendment would make it more likely for a person seeking assistance to be referred to someone who is unwilling or unable to help. In addition, these amendments could carry an operational impact, as the new service would need to be designed and brought into existence.

Amendment 287 would mean that, if the first practitioner is unable or unwilling to conduct the preliminary discussion, they must, upon request, refer the person to a registered medical practitioner who is qualified to undertake the preliminary discussion. They must also set out palliative medicine options to provide the patient with appropriate end-of-life care, including referring the person to a palliative medicine expert. This amendment removes the duty in clause 4(5) to refer to a practitioner whom the first practitioner believes is willing and able to conduct the preliminary discussion.

As with previous amendments, this language could make it more likely for a person seeking assistance to be referred to someone who is unwilling or unable to help. It is not clear what

“qualified to undertake such a preliminary discussion”

is intended to mean. In addition, the term “palliative care expert” is not a defined term. Palliative medicine is a designated speciality of the General Medical Council and a doctor can apply to be entered on to the GMC specialist register for this speciality, provided they have the specialist medical qualification, training or experience. I hope these observations are helpful, and I thank the Committee for its attention.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I rise to speak to amendments 341, 338 and 412 together, and I welcome the debate on these important amendments. Choice is one of the key tenets of the Bill, primarily—but not exclusively—for terminally ill adults with a limited time to live. Choice is also very important for medical practitioners, and I am very respectful of, and acknowledge the importance of, conscientious objection for doctors. When it comes to assisted dying, I believe that they should also have choice. Indeed, the Bill is written so that they can choose not to participate in the process for any reason. That is the BMA’s view, and I agree with it.

The BMA has a position of neutrality on assisted dying, and there are a range of views within medical professions, as there are within all groups of people. That is why I have adopted its position of an opt-in model for the purposes of the Bill. Nevertheless, the process must remain patient focused at all times, and that means enabling them to have a discussion on such an important matter. It would not be right to rely on online advice or even the best-designed written materials. As we have already established, doctors are used to having sensitive and compassionate discussions with people who are terminally ill, and there can be no substitute for that. While a doctor may not wish to participate themselves, and I fully respect that, they still have a responsibility towards their patients, and that should include ensuring that they can speak to a properly qualified medical practitioner at such a difficult time.

I understand that the BMA and others would not be comfortable with the word “refer”, which I understand to have a special meaning within medical practice. The GMC guidelines use different language. They talk about where a doctor has a conscientious objection, in which case they are advised that they must make sure that arrangements are made for another suitably qualified colleague to take over their role. The BMA’s guidance says that patients must be able to see another doctor, as appropriate, and that it need not always be a formal procedure. It is not, however, sufficient to simply tell the patient to seek a view elsewhere—I agree completely.

The BMA supports amendment 341, which says that a doctor

“must ensure that the person is directed to where they can obtain information and have the preliminary discussion.”

I am therefore happy to support the amendment today and, if it were to need further adjustment, I am very happy to consider alternatives based on existing best practice. I would be very happy to meet with the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, who is herself a doctor, to discuss her thoughts and draw on her considerable medical experience.

[Danny Kruger]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: 341, in clause 4, page 2, line 33, leave out from “subsection (3)” to the end of line 36 and insert

“is not required to refer the person to another medical practitioner but must ensure that the person is directed to where they can obtain information and have the preliminary discussion.”—(Rebecca Paul.)

This amendment would provide that a registered medical practitioner who is unable or unwilling to have the preliminary discussion with a person must provide information to the person about where they can have that discussion, but that this need not take the form of a referral.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

As amendments 125 and 126 are consequential on new clause 7, I shall speak to them as a whole and not in turn. The purpose of the amendments appears to be twofold. First, they seek to restrict the role of medical practitioners who can hold an initial discussion to those who have completed training. That training would be specified by the Secretary of State in regulations and would make them eligible to be listed on the register of assisted dying medical practitioners.

Secondly, the amendments seek to apply the same principle to the co-ordinating or independent doctor. In addition, they would place a duty on the Secretary of State to make regulations that would create the register to sit outside or alongside the current system of registration of medical practitioners and set out the training requirements to be eligible to be listed on the register.

Both sets of regulations are to be subject to the affirmative procedure, and the Secretary of State must consult such persons as they consider appropriate before making them. The regulations making provision for the relevant training requirements must be laid within six months of the passing of this Act. The regulations establishing the register must be laid within 12 months of the passing of the Act.

Although the purpose of the amendments is clear, our assessment suggests that the drafting would not achieve the desired effect, because the register would include only those doctors who have not undertaken the specified training or who have opted out of the assisted dying service. Additionally, the suggested timeframe for laying regulations is unworkable, given the need to work with regulators and the proposed duty to consult. There are also significant operability concerns regarding the creation of a new register for a subset of registered medical practitioners.

I hope that the Committee has found those observations helpful. I thank Members for their attention.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I have nothing to add.

[The Chair]

For clarity, amendment 125 is not being pressed to a Division, as I understand it. If the hon. Member for Broxtowe withdraws amendment 125, there will be an opportunity to vote on amendment 126 and new clause 7 later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

I have made it clear throughout the debate that I am not offering a Government view on the merits of amendments. My remarks are focused much more on the legal and practical impacts of amendments, to assist Members in undertaking line-by-line scrutiny.

The amendments were tabled by the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire. They would create a further eligibility requirement of the person seeking assistance under the Bill. Amendment 271 and 272 would limit those eligible to seek assistance to end their own life, in circumstances where their terminal diagnosis was received less than six months prior to the date on which the person signs the first declaration, to those who have received a psychosocial intervention. This would be subject to any exceptions provided for by the Secretary of State in regulations. Amendment 271 does not define what is meant by “received a psychosocial intervention” in relation to their diagnosis.

The term “intervention” is usually employed in the health service to mean the provision of support or treatment. This is different from, for example, an assessment that a clinician might undertake to assess whether an intervention may be required. While there is not a standard definition of psychosocial intervention, we understand it to mean psychosocial interventions such as cognitive behavioural therapy. The amendment could create uncertainty as to what type of treatment a person will need to undergo to satisfy the requirement. If a person who would otherwise seek assistance to end their own life under the Bill is unable to, or does not wish to, receive a psychosocial intervention, unless an exemption applies, they may need to delay starting the assisted dying process until at least six months has elapsed from their terminal diagnosis. That could be challenging in circumstances where the terminal diagnosis has a prognosis of six months or less.

The amendment would also introduce a requirement for people in certain contexts to undergo an intervention that could undermine a person’s autonomy in making their own treatment decisions. Were the amendment made, it would confer a regulation-making power on the Secretary of State to create exceptions to the proposed provisions on psychosocial intervention. Regulations made using this power would be subject to the affirmative procedure. It would also give the Secretary of State the power to issue a code of practice in connection with the form of the psychosocial intervention required.

If the Committee decides to accept the amendment, further consideration would be needed on Report to ensure that it is operationally deliverable, and my earlier comments about the definition of psychosocial intervention and other comments would have to be clarified. The Government would, of course, stand ready to assist were the amendment to pass.

As I said earlier, the Government have taken a neutral position on the substantive policy questions relevant to how the law in this area could be changed—as I have made clear, that is a matter for this Committee and for Parliament as a whole. However, I hope that these observations have been helpful, and thank the Committee for its attention.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I have nothing to add, other than to associate myself with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central and those of the Minister.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Division 29

Ayes: 4

Noes: 16

[Kim Leadbeater]

I beg to move amendment 184, in clause 5, page 3, line 7, leave out “Schedule 1” and insert

“regulations made by the Secretary of State”.

This amendment provides that the form of a first declaration is to be set out in regulations (rather than in Schedule 1).

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 289, in clause 5, page 3, line 11, leave out “another person” and insert “another registered clinician”.

This amendment ensures that the second witness is a registered clinician.

Amendment 418, in clause 5, page 3, line 12, at end insert—

“(2A) Regulations under subsection (2)(a) must provide that the first declaration contains—

(a) the following information—

(i) the person’s full name and address;

(ii) the person’s NHS number;

(iii) contact details for the person’s GP practice;

(b) the following further declarations by the person—

(i) a declaration that they meet the initial conditions for eligibility (see subsection (2B));

(ii) a declaration that they have had a preliminary discussion with a registered medical practitioner, that they were aged 18 or over when they had that discussion, and that they understand the information referred to in section 4(4)(a) to (c) that was provided during that discussion;

section 4(4)(a)

(iii) a declaration that they are content to be assessed, for the purposes of this Act, by medical practitioners;

(iv) a declaration that they are making the first declaration voluntarily and have not been coerced or pressured by any other person into making it;

(v) a declaration that they understand that they may cancel the first declaration at any time.

(2B) In subsection (2A)(b)(i) ‘the initial conditions for eligibility’ are that the person making the declaration—

(a) is aged 18 or over,

(b) is ordinarily resident in England and Wales and has been so resident for at least 12 months, and

(c) is registered with a general medical practice in England or Wales.”

This amendment makes provision about the content of regulations under subsection (2)(a), which will set out the form of the first declaration.

Amendment 277, in clause 5, page 3, line 12, at end insert—

“(2A) A person may not make a first declaration under subsection (1) until 28 days have elapsed, beginning with the day they received a diagnosis of the terminal illness.”

This amendment would mean a person could not make the first declaration until 28 days from the day they received a diagnosis of the terminal illness.

Amendment 420, in clause 7, page 4, line 16, leave out subsection (3) and insert—

“(3) After carrying out the first assessment, the coordinating doctor must—

(a) make a report about the assessment (which must meet the requirements of regulations under subsection (4));

(b) give a copy of the report to—

(i) the person who was assessed (‘the assessed person’),

(ii) if the coordinating doctor is not a practitioner with the person’s GP practice, a registered medical practitioner with that practice, and

(iii) any other person specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State;

(c) if satisfied as to all of the matters mentioned in subsection (2)(a) to (g), refer the assessed person to another registered medical practitioner who meets the requirements of section 8(6) and is able and willing to carry out the second assessment (‘the independent doctor’).

(4) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision about the content and form of the report.

(5) The regulations must provide that the report must—

(a) contain a statement indicating whether the coordinating doctor is satisfied as to all of the matters mentioned in subsection (2)(a) to (g);

(b) contain an explanation of why the coordinating doctor is, or (as the case may be) is not, so satisfied;

(c) contain a statement indicating whether the coordinating doctor is satisfied as to the following—

(i) that a record of the preliminary discussion has been included in the person’s medical records;

(ii) that the making of the first declaration has been recorded in the person’s medical records;

(iii) that the first declaration has not been cancelled;

(d) be signed and dated by the coordinating doctor.”

This amendment requires the coordinating doctor to make a report about the first assessment, and (if satisfied of the matters mentioned in subsection (2)) to refer the person to another practitioner for the second assessment.

Amendment 195, in clause 8, page 4, line 40, leave out “statement” and insert “report”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 420.

Amendment 209, in clause 16, page 11, line 8, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c) and insert—

“(b) a report about the first assessment of a person is made under section 7;

(c) a report about the second assessment of a person is made under section 8;”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendments 420 and 421.

Amendment 220, in clause 34, page 20, line 36, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—

“(a) a report about the first assessment of a person does not contain a statement indicating that the coordinating doctor is satisfied as to all of the matters mentioned in section 7(2)(a) to (g);

(b) a report about the second assessment of a person does not contain a statement indicating that the independent doctor is satisfied as to all of the matters mentioned in section 8(2)(a) to (e);”

Amendment 421, in clause 8, page 5, line 4, leave out subsection (5) and insert—

“(5) After carrying out the second assessment, the independent doctor must—

(a) make a report about the assessment (which must meet the requirements of regulations under subsection (5A)), and

(b) give a copy of the report to—

(i) the person who was assessed,

(ii) the coordinating doctor,

(iii) if neither the independent doctor nor the coordinating doctor is a practitioner with the person’s GP practice, a registered medical practitioner with that practice, and

(iv) any other person specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(5A) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision about the content and form of the report.

(5B) The regulations must provide that the report must—

(a) contain a statement indicating whether the independent doctor is satisfied as to all of the matters mentioned in subsection (2)(a) to (e);

(b) contain an explanation of why the independent doctor is, or (as the case may be) is not, so satisfied;

(c) contain a statement indicating whether the independent doctor is satisfied as to the following—

(i) that a record of the preliminary discussion has been included in the person’s medical records;

(ii) that the person signed the first declaration;

(iii) that the making of the first declaration has been recorded in the person’s medical records;

(iv) that the first declaration has not been cancelled;

(d) be signed and dated by the independent doctor.”

This amendment provides that the independent doctor must make a report about the second assessment, and makes provision about the report.

Amendment 203, in clause 10, page 6, line 42, at end insert—

“(A1) This section applies where the independent doctor has—

(a) carried out the second assessment, and

(b) made a report stating that they are not satisfied as to all of the matters mentioned in section 8(2)(a) to (e).”

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 421.

Amendment 204, in clause 10, page 6, line 43, leave out from beginning to second “the” in line 44.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 203.

Amendment 329, in clause 13, page 9, line 20, leave out paragraph (a).

This amendment removes the reference to Schedule 4 from the clause and is linked to Amendment 330.

Amendment 207, in clause 13, page 9, line 20, leave out “Schedule 4” and insert

“regulations made by the Secretary of State”.

This amendment provides that the form of a second declaration is to be set out in regulations (rather than in Schedule 4).

Amendment 330, in clause 13, page 9, line 26, at end insert—

“(3A) A second declaration must include the following information—

(a) the name and address of the person;

(b) the NHS number of the person;

(c) the contact details for the general medical practice at which the person is registered;

(d) a declaration by the person that they have made a first declaration under this Act;

(e) a declaration by the person that the assessing doctors have made the appropriate declarations under this Act together with the dates of those declarations;

(f) the details of the declaration made by the High Court or Court of Appeal;

(g) a declaration by the person they are eligible to end their life under this Act;

(h) a declaration by the person that they wish to be provided with assistance to end their own life under this Act;

(i) a declaration by the person that they understand that they must make this second declaration under the Act and that they do so voluntarily and have not been coerced or pressured by any other person into making it.

(j) a declaration that they understand that they can cancel their declaration at any time.

(k) any other information or signed declarations as may be set out by the Secretary of State in regulations.

(3B) Any regulations made under subsection (3A) are subject to the negative procedure.”

This amendment sets out the requirements for the second declaration by the person and is linked to Amendment 329.

Amendment 331, in clause 13, page 9, line 38, leave out paragraph (a).

This amendment removes the reference to Schedule 5 from the Bill.

Amendment 208, in clause 13, page 9, line 38, leave out “Schedule 5” and insert

“regulations made by the Secretary of State”.

This amendment provides that the form of a statement by the coordinating doctor following the making of the second declaration is to be set out in regulations (rather than in Schedule 5).

Amendment 332, in clause 13, page 9, line 41, at end insert—

“(6A) A statement made under subsection (6) must include the following information—

(a) a declaration by the coordinating doctor that the person is terminally ill within the meaning of this Act and the nature of the relevant illness, disease or medical condition,

(b) details of any relevant declaration made by the High Court or Court of Appeal;

(c) a declaration that the coordinating doctor is of the opinion that the person’s death is either likely or unlikely to occur before the end of the period of one month beginning with the day on which the declaration was made by the High Court or Court of Appeal under this Act;

(d) a declaration that the coordinating doctor is satisfied that the requirements of this Act regarding any period of reflection has been met;

(e) a declaration that the person requesting assistance under the Act has the capacity to do so, and that they have a clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life;

(f) a declaration that neither the first or second declarations by the person have been cancelled;

(g) any other information or signed declarations as may be set out by the Secretary of State in regulations.

(6B) Any regulations made under subsection (3A) are subject to the negative procedure.”

This amendment sets out the requirements for the second statement by the coordinating doctor and is linked to Amendment 331.

Amendment 333, in clause 21, page 14, line 9, leave out paragraph (a).

This amendment leaves out reference to Schedule 6 and is linked to Amendment 330.

Amendment 214, in clause 21, page 14, line 9, leave out “Schedule 6” and insert

“regulations made by the Secretary of State”.

This amendment provides that the form of a final statement is to be set out in regulations (rather than in Schedule 6).

Amendment 334, in clause 21, page 14, line 10, at end insert—

“(3A) The statement mentioned in subsection (2) must include—

(a) the contact details of the coordinating doctor;

(b) the name, NHS number and medical practice of the person given assistance under the Act;

(c) a declaration that the person was provided with assistance to end their own life in accordance with this Act;

(d) the date of any declarations made by the person under this Act;

(e) the date of any statements made by assessing medical practitioners under this Act;

(f) the details of the advanced and progressive condition the person had;

(g) the approved substance provided;

(h) the date and time of death;

(i) the time between use of the approved substance and death;

(j) any other information or signed declarations as may be set out by the Secretary of State in regulations.

(3B) Any regulations made under subsection (3A) are subject to the negative procedure.”

This amendment sets out the information that must be included in a final statement under this Act and is linked to Amendment 333.

Amendment 403, in schedule 1, page 25, line 25, at end insert—

“7. I have—

1. informed my family of my wish to be provided with assistance to end my life and taken their opinions into consideration

2. decided not to inform my family of my decision

3. no family to inform of my decision”.

Amendment 404, in schedule 4, page 29, line 7, at end insert—

“10. I have—

1. informed my family of my wish to be provided with assistance to end my life and taken their opinions into consideration

2. decided not to inform my family of my decision

3. no family to inform of my decision”.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I rise to support my amendments in this group, which seek to clarify the details that must be included, under regulations, in the first declaration, and the report that is consequent on that declaration. While I believe it was useful on Second Reading for MPs to be aware of the content of the form that the doctor should complete, the advice I have received—with which I agree—is that the details are more appropriately a matter for regulations. There is always a balance to be struck, but it would not be reasonable to expect the House to have to consider changes in primary legislation simply to alter the contents of a declaration, important though the details are.

The proposed changes go further in a way that I believe should greatly reassure the Committee. As we discussed this morning, they make it clear that a person must have been over the age of 18 when the first discussion under the Bill took place. They also require doctors not just to make formal declarations, but to produce reports covering the eligibility of the person to request assistance, the nature of the assessments they have made, their discussions with that person and, crucially, the person’s understanding of those discussions and of what the process entails. This will ensure that all the relevant discussions have been recorded and understood, and that an account of them has been recorded and will be available for future reference. For reporting purposes, if a person applying for assistance is found not to be eligible, that information will be recorded too. I hope the Committee will agree that further safeguards will be put in place as a result, without imposing additional stress or burdens on terminally ill patients during such a different period.

[Kit Malthouse]

I rise to speak in support of amendment 184 and to point out that I have now withdrawn amendments 329 to 334, so we will not vote on them later. Like the hon. Member for Spen Valley, I had thought that although it was sensible at Second Reading to have schedules to the Bill that laid out the forms, they were quite limited and strict in their form, so we needed more flexibility and the opportunity for the House, by regulation, to add content to the required forms in the future. I also wanted to insert a declaration by the person that they had had an initial conversation covering all the factors in the Bill and, critically, that they understood the information that had been presented to them. Amendment 184 would do exactly that.

For Members’ reference, I tabled similar amendments that would have done the same with the other schedules. Following conversations with the hon. Member for Spen Valley, I have now withdrawn them all and amalgamated them into amendments that would do the same as those that she has tabled, along with some additional bits and pieces. Amendment 184 is relatively self-explanatory.

I want to speak against amendment 277, which would impose a time limit of 28 days between diagnosis and the first declaration of a terminal illness. In a lot of circumstances, that would be a very difficult time delay for people to face. As the hon. Member for Bradford West, who tabled the amendment, will know, there are already periods of reflection in the Bill, although it also contains provision for a compressed time limit for those who face imminent death. Particularly for those who are unfortunately diagnosed with certain diseases, adding 28 days will insert a delay at a time when people who are facing what they do not want to face—a horrible death—need as much time as they can to get through the process. For example, if we take together all the factors for people who are sadly diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, the median survival is six to 12 months.

I do not know if the hon. Lady knows this, but pancreatic cancer is a particularly unpleasant cancer, not least because it does not exhibit symptoms in its early stages—people do not know they have it until quite late in its development. Treatment for it is not well advanced, and many people diagnosed with pancreatic cancer sometimes have only weeks to live. The idea that we should make them wait 28 days before they can even start the process seems impractical and, I am sorry to say, cruel to them in many ways. It is worth remembering that this is not a six-month “bang, I go and do it.” Most people who have a terminal illness will begin the application process at six months. Once they have the ability to ask for this service, they will then wait until they decide that their life has come to its end, at the time and place of their choosing. That might be at six months, or it might be at six days. The point of the Bill is to put the power to make that decision in their hands. Although the Bill has periods of reflection—it recognises that people need to sit and think about these things—imposing an absolute 28 days on everybody, without accounting for what stage they are at in their disease and how long they have to live, is not necessarily a sensible amendment, and I will oppose it from that point of view.

I understand the objective of my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire in tabling amendments 403 and 404, which are about informing family. I would hope that those are the sorts of discussions that doctors would have—perhaps one of the doctors on the Committee can tell us. On whether we should put that on the face of the Bill, I have been persistent in trying to make sure that the conversation is not guarded. The amendments ask whether I have any family—I am not quite sure what “family” means. Does it mean my children? Maybe I do not want to tell my children. Does it mean my next of kin? I do not know. Is it distant relatives? Is it my whole family? There are problems with the definition of “family”.

While I will not support the amendment, I understand what my hon. Friend was trying to do. I would hope that those are the kinds of sensitive matters that a doctor would tease out of an individual as they look for the various items that we have put in the Bill to make sure that the person is making the decision on a sound basis as a settled view and has the capacity to do so.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Eighteenth sitting)

Kim Leadbeater Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 5th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Naz Shah]

I rise to speak to amendment 20, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato).

The key point for me is that doctors are not specialists in coercive control, but this amendment would give them training to spot abusive and coercive relationships, which are difficult to detect. Domestic abuse and coercive control have a disproportionate effect on women and disabled people, and if doctors just rely on their experience to detect coercive control and abuse, they are more likely to miss cases. Some doctors will be more experienced or more perceptive than others. This amendment is not a perfect safeguard, but it will improve the chances of doctors stopping people being coerced.

The amendment would ensure that co-ordinating doctors must have undertaken training on domestic abuse, including coercive control and financial abuse. It is a significant and distinct amendment. In particular, it addresses the issue of repeated coercive control, which so far has been overlooked in the Bill. I believe that amendments seeking to improve safeguards against coercion that do not address the issue of repeated coercive behaviour are inadequate in protecting vulnerable people, particularly women.

It is regrettable that in our witness sessions we did not hear from any experts on repeat coercive control. Such testimony would have been valuable, helping the Committee to understand why this specific environment puts people at risk with regard to the Bill.

We have already spoken a great deal about coercion in this Committee and other Members have referred to that. We have raised concerns about someone coercing another person into the process of assisted dying in a one-off incident. However, we have not yet discussed the very real issue of repeated coercive control and what it means to live in that environment, nor the implications that the Bill may have for people in those situations.

Dr Hannah Denno submitted written evidence to this Committee. She wrote:

“As a doctor I am not trained to detect coercion, and I do not believe that the Bill pays sufficient attention to the detection of those who are under pressure from themselves or others to end their lives. The Bill describes two independent medical assessments, both can be carried out by doctors who have never previously met or cared for the patient.”

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

I just want to provide some reassurance to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West. I have met my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft and today I will support amendment 20, which she has tabled. I hope that provides some reassurance to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West.

[Naz Shah]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention and I am really grateful that she is supporting the amendment. However, the reason I am making this speech is that I do not think the amendment goes far enough in terms of providing safeguards within the Bill. So, I will make some progress with my speech and then I will address some of the issues that are not addressed in this particular amendment, and set out how we can go further, as well as highlighting some of my concerns.

I return to what Dr Denno wrote in the evidence that she submitted. She wrote that she was:

“not trained to detect coercion”.

And she also wrote that

“Social workers are better placed to screen for coercion but are not mentioned in the Bill.”

Since that submission, my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has tabled an amendment that would mandate a social worker to sit on a panel to consider each application for assisted death. However, I am afraid that I must repeat several points about these panels, points that have already been made frequently. These panels are under no obligation to interview the applicant for assisted death in person. Panel members may do so if they have any concerns, but they may not. That makes it harder for panel members to detect possible coercion.

There is also an absence of any mechanism for people who know assisted dying applicants to report any concerns they have that that person is being coerced into this form of action. The panels are not used in that way, which is the way that multidisciplinary panels are used in the NHS to decide on the pathway for a patient. Instead, the panels introduced by my hon. Friend’s amendment would wait until the two doctors have submitted their statements on the applicant and then the panel members would scrutinise those statements. If they spot problems with the way that the doctors have determined that the patient is not being coerced, then, yes, they would call the patient in for more scrutiny. However, they will first have to come to that conclusion without seeing the patient. That is not a very robust safeguard.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

I am in the process of tabling an amendment that would change the panel to that effect, so that it would speak to the patient. Hopefully, that provides some more reassurance for my hon. Friend. I am sure that we are working very effectively through the Committee process to achieve what we all want to see.

[Naz Shah]

I am pleased to hear that my hon. Friend will table further amendments, but I have not seen that amendment, so I cannot speak to it.

I would slightly beg to differ with my hon. Friend in terms of making progress in the way that I would like to have seen. I would just gently remind her that I am not convinced that we are. I think we are making good progress, but I also voted against one clause stand part and had lots of concerns about another one, so we will agree to disagree on that one.

The non-governmental organisation The Other Half observes in its written evidence to this Committee—TIAB 104—that the Bill makes no provision to identify family members who may benefit financially from the death of a patient, and, therefore, the Bill is unable to protect the vulnerable. That is something that I have said before in this Committee.

This amendment makes training in respect of financial abuse mandatory. It is vital that a medical practitioner is trained on how to identify coercion—we can all agree on that—but coercion is different from domestic abuse. Coercion may be relatively obvious to spot, but, in contrast, coercive and controlling behaviour is much less obvious. It can be subtle. It can be hidden, and unexpected to an outsider. It requires much more sensitive questioning and a degree of a doctor-patient relationship to identify. Multiple people have raised that a patient-doctor relationship is important for spotting that, and, currently, there is nothing in the Bill to say that the two independent doctors have to have met the patient before.

That subtle coercion could have happened over years. We have repeatedly heard from people giving evidence that it is really hard to spot, and the reason it is hard to spot is because it is a matter of trust for a patient to be able to tell somebody—for a victim of coercive control to be able to express that. Even recognising that there is subtle coercion going on is hard for victims of that coercion to understand.

If there is domestic violence—again, I say in this Committee that I first campaigned on domestic abuse in the mid-1990s, and I am not convinced that the stats have changed much. I will refer to some more later on, as I make progress, but it takes women, on average, 40 times to leave an abusive partner—40 times—and it took me a long time to leave my abusive forced marriage when I was very young. The coercion that happens is so subtle and, again, when it is repeated coercion, it is hard to even recognise it as a victim, let alone for a professional to be able to see it. Even when a professional may pick up on it, it is acknowledgment from the victim—that they recognise what is happening—that is important, and that often is not the case.

Again, multiple people have raised that the doctor-patient relationship is important, and there is nothing currently in the Bill to ensure that there is a long-standing relationship between the doctor and the patient. Therefore, it is unreasonable to assume that someone in an abusive relationship, or who experiences coercive and controlling behaviour on top of their terminal illness, would be willing and able to disclose that to a stranger, even if that stranger is a doctor.

On top of that, research suggests that a significant proportion of medical staff in the UK do not feel that they have had adequate training to spot domestic abuse. Research by YouGov and the charity SafeLives in 2018-19 found that half of UK healthcare professionals are untrained to spot domestic abuse.

I understand the current difficulty in ensuring that doctors have a prior relationship with patients; it may not be practically possible. In many cases, where patients will know their doctors, or even know them well, it is even more vital that both doctors have been thoroughly trained in spotting coercive-control behaviour.

Like the other Labour MPs on the Committee, I was elected on a manifesto pledge to halve violence against women and girls within the next 10 years. We must not forget that as we scrutinise this legislation; I want my colleagues and I to remain committed to that in this Bill.

This Bill will have particularly grave consequences for women, since we know that domestic abuse disproportionately affects them. The crime survey for England and Wales estimated that 2.3 million people aged 16 years and over experienced domestic abuse in the year ending March 2024. Of those, 1.6 million were women and 712,000 were men. In the same year, there were only 51,183 domestic abuse-related prosecutions—a very small number compared with the number of people who experienced domestic abuse. That is in addition to the abuse of our elderly, on which Age Concern submitted evidence. Those figures demonstrate that we already frequently struggle with bringing domestic abuse cases to prosecution stage. They show that even the dedicated members of our caring professions have trouble detecting domestic abuse. If something is hard, we need to train our doctors to do it.

Our society already diminishes the status of elderly, infirm women and I have concerns that the Bill will further entrench that. We need to be aware of and ensure that we address the problem of mercy killings in the Bill. That issue is distinctly gendered and the Bill as currently worded will have a distinctly gendered impact if we do not address it. In 2024, The Other Half carried out a review of more than 100 UK cases of so-called mercy killings. It found that

“‘mercy killings’ are not the wanted, ‘hastened’ deaths that need assisted dying.”

Instead, the review found that:

“They are overwhelmingly violent domestic homicides of women, by men: and show that our society is still poor at detecting and responding to domestic abuse.”

Some groups are more vulnerable to domestic abuse than others. A higher proportion of people aged 16 and over with a disability—a group that we know is vulnerable in relation to the Bill—experienced domestic abuse in the last year than those without a disability.

The law and Parliament have, unfortunately, taken a very long time to even start adequately responding to these problems. Coercive control was first recognised as a distinct offence in English law only in the Serious Crime Act 2015. As written, the Bill would not mandate training to the doctors whose role it would be to consider assisted dying cases. Of course, no training can be perfect, but to allow the Bill to go forward without ensuring that doctors have training in this complex matter would be negligent. It would mean that we were failing to even try to carry out our responsibilities to protect people, especially women, in abusive and coercive relationships.

I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has said that she will accept the amendment, but it does not go far enough. The question is: how do we prevent abusers making use of the Bill if it becomes law? The amendment gives us one way of mitigating that risk to a degree. We already have issues recognising domestic abuse. The amendment cannot perfectly solve that problem, but it would take steps to do so.

We must safeguard vulnerable people who live subject to coercive and controlling behaviour on a daily basis from opting for assisted dying as a result of that environment. Thorough and specific training on spotting that is vital for doctors. I am grateful that my hon. Friend, in accepting the amendment, will ensure that some of that training will be forthcoming. Even one abused person being driven by their abuser to use assisted dying is one too many. I am confident that all hon. Members would agree with me on that deeply important point.

In the last few days, I have been looking at suicide, and one of the issues that has come up is that last year, for the first time in our history, suicide by victims of domestic violence overtook deaths from what we would term intimate partner homicide. In the last two weeks, there have been further reports highlighting that the number of women driven to suicide because of the experience of domestic violence has risen. Tomorrow, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips) will read the name of every woman who has been killed in the last year, as she does every year. Two of those women were my constituents, and many more kill themselves to get away from their abusers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank the right hon. Lady for that. We go back to the point about the true significance of the 2011 Welsh Government Measure, which sets a basic foundation for the duty of the Welsh Government to ensure that Welsh language provision is provided through the Welsh NHS. There is absolutely no debate about that point; that is nailed on. The question is simply how we ensure, if we are to amend this Bill along the lines that the right hon. Lady suggests, that that does not create a lacuna or confusion in the system. I think we need to sit down and discuss that, to ensure that whatever we propose is watertight.

It may be helpful to note, as in discussion of amendment 413, that regardless of this amendment, under the Welsh Language Measure of 2011 the NHS in Wales has a statutory duty to deliver its services to the public in both Welsh and English. That legislation gives the Welsh language official status in Wales, and the Measure states that individuals in Wales should be able to conduct their lives through the medium of Welsh if they choose to do so. The Welsh Government’s active offer for health is intended to support all staff across NHS Wales to provide a service in Welsh for patients without their having to ask for it.

Under amendment 20, regulations made by the Secretary of State on the necessary training, qualifications and experience of the co-ordinating doctor would be required to include mandatory training relating to domestic abuse, including coercive control and financial abuse. Amendments 185 and 186, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, would require that regulations made by the Secretary of State on the necessary training, qualifications and experience of the co-ordinating doctor covered training related to assessing capacity and whether a person has been coerced or pressured by another person. But I note that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has said, she is minded to support amendment 20, which clearly would ramp up the requirement, as previously discussed.

As I have said, the Government have taken a neutral position on the substantive policy questions relevant to how the law in this area could be changed, but to clarify the intent of the Bill, we have worked with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley in relation to amendments 185 and 186, which would place the Secretary of State under a duty to make regulations regarding the necessary training, qualifications and experience of the co-ordinating doctor. That would include specific training on assessing capacity and assessing whether a person has been subject to coercion or pressure.

I hope that that explanation and those observations have assisted the Committee. I thank hon. Members for their attention.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I rise to speak first to my amendments 185 and 186, which would make important changes to impose a duty on the Secretary of State to make regulations about the training, qualifications and experience required to act as the co-ordinating doctor, as the Minister says. Moving from “may” to “must” would make it a legal requirement that such training take place and would thereby strengthen the Bill. In its present form, the Bill gives the Secretary of State that power to make such regulations but does not legally require him or her to do so.

Amendment 186 would ensure that regulations must include training about

“(a) assessing capacity;

(b) assessing whether a person has been coerced or pressured by any other person.”

Colleagues will appreciate that it is difficult for me to resist the temptation to put the entire training manual in the Bill—we all want to show the thorough approach that has been taken—but doing so would not make for good, clear legislation and can be limited in terms of flexibility and future-proofing. However, given the importance of the matters of capacity and coercion, I felt that it was important that this level of detail be specified in the Bill, because those issues have been at the heart of so many of our deliberations on this hugely sensitive and important issue.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford, who tabled amendment (a) to my amendment 186, has made a compelling argument, as always. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge, I have some concerns that the amendment would limit the number of disabled people who are covered and that it would not cover people with mental disorders, but I understand the concerns around autistic people and those with learning disabilities.

I am also mindful, given that people with Down’s syndrome will typically have some form of learning disability, that amendment (a) may help to address some of the concerns that were expressed yesterday about ensuring that the Bill meets their needs and takes them into consideration. I take on board the Minister’s comments about the Health and Care Act 2022, but I am minded to support the amendment and work with my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford and others as necessary to make any further changes as the Bill progresses.

[Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for supporting that amendment. We have often debated the level of detail that should be set out in the Bill. I fully appreciate that she does not want to include the whole training manual; I will not discuss my amendment, which concerns culture and trauma-informed care, because I recognise that it is much too detailed in that respect. However, does she agree that where possible, and where it does not create unintended consequences or loopholes, we should reassure not just colleagues across the House but members of the public, who want to see these sorts of thing on the face of the Bill?

[Kim Leadbeater]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If the Bill passes, it will be a huge change. We have a duty to the public to show that we are including sufficient detail in the Bill and to provide reassurance in any way we can. To be honest, I would quite like to put the entire training manual in the Bill, but I appreciate that from a legislative perspective that is not possible. However, there are occasions when, for the avoidance of doubt, we should make certain provisions clear on the face of the Bill.

That brings me to amendment 20, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft, who has a huge amount of experience and expertise in the field to which it relates. Her amendment states:

“Regulations under subsection (3)(a) must specify that training in respect of domestic abuse, including coercive control and financial abuse is mandatory.”

At the moment, there are no safeguards for terminally ill victims of domestic abuse, financial abuse or coercive control. That concerns me, and it feeds into the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West.

If a victim of domestic abuse or coercive control—it is often a woman, as we know—is also terminally ill, I can only imagine what a lonely place that is. At the moment, that person is under no supervision. Sadly, there have been instances in which those people have taken their own life. They will continue to be the victims of their incredibly difficult personal circumstances on top of having a terminal illness, which is an absolute tragedy. Opening up the conversation with doctors and healthcare professionals about their circumstances has to be a good thing. It will shed light and transparency on what must be an incredibly difficult situation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Saville Roberts]

Diolch, Gadeirydd. As Professor Emyr Lewis of Aberystwyth University told this Committee in oral evidence, because this Bill is a private Member’s Bill it has not gone through the usual process of engagement with devolved Governments. I recognise that there will be amendments and changes and amendments to amendments, but I can speak to the principle here and we will have to adapt as we move ahead, as we are learning to do in this Committee.

The Wales Act 2017 formally acknowledged the Sewel convention by amending section 107 of the Government of Wales Act 2006 with a declaration stating—this is important—that

“it is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Senedd.”

It is in that spirit that work needs to be done to ensure that the devolved legislature in Wales and the complexities of legislating across reserved and devolved matters are fully considered and represented in the Bill. That is what these 28 amendments seek to do.

The use of the term “appropriate authority” does two things. First, in the here and now, it recognises the complexity of which competency lies where and with which Minister or Secretary of State. Secondly, it future-proofs the legislation, which we know is important. If and when there are any changes to devolved powers and competencies, the appropriate authority can move with time with the specifics of who is responsible for what.

Amendment 169 would amend clause 40 to include a definition of “appropriate authority”, the term that is used in my other amendments. It would mean the Secretary of State in relation to England and the Welsh Ministers in relation to Wales, where those powers are devolved rather than reserved. The amendment would provide for my other amendments, which would modify each relevant mention of powers provided to the Secretary of State in the Bill, to supply Welsh Ministers with equivalent powers in Wales.

Amendment 144 would amend clause 5 to allow Welsh Ministers the same powers as the Secretary of State in England to specify the training, qualifications and experience of the medical practitioner representing the co-ordinating doctor, because that matter is devolved to Wales. Amendment 145, similarly, would require Welsh Ministers to consult persons they consider appropriate before making the relevant regulations in Wales.

Amendment 146 would amend clause 6 to allow Welsh Government Ministers equivalent powers to make provision around proof of identity. Amendment 147 would similarly amend clause 8 in relation to the training, qualifications and experience of the independent doctor; we are talking, of course, about the co-ordinating doctor.

And so on, and so on. I assume that hon. Members now understand the purpose of my various amendments. I am more than willing to explain them further if necessary, but otherwise I will skip ahead.

Amendments 155 and 156 would modify clause 30 so that the Welsh Government are provided with a power to issue a code of practice over arrangements in relation to this legislation in Wales. That might be a useful route into further discussions on the specifications of the codes of practice; it might also be significant in discussions with the hon. Member for Spen Valley and the Government about how to recognise legislative differences in safeguarding and the Welsh language.

Amendments 157 and 158 are also important. They would provide Welsh Ministers with the power to make regulations under clause 32 to ensure that assistance is available through the health service in Wales. That is the responsibility of Welsh Ministers. As Committee members know, Senedd Cymru voted against a motion to support an assisted dying law by 26 to 19, with nine abstaining. There are a number of issues of which we need to be aware when bringing an England and Wales law into Wales. To ignore them would be irresponsible; we do so at our peril, frankly, especially given that clauses 33 and 34 will place explicit obligations on Welsh Ministers and the chief medical officer for Wales.

I put it on the record that I am disappointed that the Committee was not able to question the chief medical officer for Wales. I understand that he was invited. As there are matters in the Bill that we do not deal with every day in this place, that would have been useful. The Bill is unprecedented, certainly for a private Member’s Bill, in respect of the support, information and advice that the Committee needs, and that would have been an obvious opportunity for us to receive advice. I understand that the chief medical officer has advised on other pieces of legislation, including vaping, although that was Government legislation.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I can confirm that the chief medical officer for Wales was invited to give evidence. I do not know the circumstances of why he did not. If it is helpful for me or other colleagues to meet him, the offer is definitely open.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s intervention.

Amendments 161 to 165 relate to clauses 35, 37 and 38. Amendments 161 to 163 would provide for the Welsh Government to review the operation of the legislation in Wales, which is vital to understand the specifics of the Welsh context and to learn and adapt as appropriate. To not allow Welsh Ministers that power would be to dismiss the particularities of health policy in Wales, as well as the additional implications of contextual differences. I strongly believe that we require an impact assessment to understand those differences properly within the context of health being devolved to Wales, alongside significant population differences in relation to demographics, age and sickness.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

For clarity, amendments negatived in Committee, if they are pressed today, can be tabled again on Report. I say that in case the right hon. Lady wished to press the amendment and it was defeated. I hope there was clarity from me on that.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I welcome this important debate about the impact of this potential legislation on Wales. I thank the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd for her valuable contributions. I also welcome the Minister’s commitment to meet the right hon. Lady and me for discussions with parliamentary counsel and the relevant authorities.

This is really important. The criminal justice system covers England and Wales, so it is important for the Bill to do the same, given that it disapplies the Suicide Act in certain very carefully defined circumstances. But health is, of course, devolved and the Welsh Government quite rightly make decisions on the Welsh NHS. I want to make it clear that I recognise that reality and its importance, and I am fully committed to observing the same conventions that the Government would if this were a Government Bill.

As has been said, I am working with UK Government officials to ensure that the right steps are taken at the right time, and I would expect to engage colleagues in the Welsh Government as the Bill progresses. Indeed, I really look forward to doing so and would be happy to visit the Senate if appropriate—although, as Members can tell, I need to work on my Welsh a bit. I look forward to continuing these conversations.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 359, in clause 5, page 3, line 18, at end insert—

“(ba) who has conducted the preliminary discussion in accordance with section 4,”—(Danny Kruger.)

This amendment requires that the coordinating doctor has conducted a preliminary discussion prior to witnessing the signing of the first declaration.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

The amendment speaks to the general confusion we remain in about how the assisted dying law would be implemented and who would operate it. We are in a great cloud of unknowing about whether we are talking about an NHS service or a private service. If there were to be a private service and people were to be paid to deliver it outside the NHS, the amendment would clarify obligations regarding how their remuneration would be recorded.

There is an established precedent for publishing financial interests where there is a potential for a conflict of interest. Senior officials in NHS England, NHS trusts and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency must declare financial interests—including relationships with pharmaceutical companies—in public registers. Those interests include consultancy fees, gifts, hospitality, shareholdings in pharmaceutical companies or research funding, because there is a concern that those influence drug approvals, procurement and healthcare policy and that there is a risk of bias.

NHS England guidance on managing conflicts of interest encourages the detailed disclosure of significant payments from pharmaceutical companies, often with exact figures or ranges for payments above a £500 threshold. The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry runs Disclosure UK, which requires pharmaceutical companies to publicly report payments to healthcare professionals and organisations. It would be appropriate to follow this well-established precedent and ensure that people involved in the administration of assisted dying are accountable for the transparency for their remuneration.

Clause 5(3) recognises that there could be a conflict of interest and that there is a risk that someone who is related or might benefit financially may not be a neutral assessor of someone who wishes to die, but clause 40(4), which comes rather late in the Bill—it should be up front—specifies that

“a registered medical practitioner is not to be regarded as benefiting financially or in any other material way from the death of a person by reason only of the practitioner receiving reasonable remuneration for the provision of services”.

Here is where we discover that the Bill does envisage remuneration, but people being remunerated are excluded from the definition of people who financially benefit from the service. To me, that feels dangerous.

Although it has not resolved the question of whether assisted dying is to be an NHS service, the Bill clearly envisages the establishment of a private market for these services, perhaps with a specialist service like Dignitas. Are we content with the Bill’s assertion that remuneration is not a matter for scrutiny? What level of remuneration would we consider reasonable? What level would we consider excessive—remuneration that is capable of influencing a doctor’s thinking? Would they be paid for administering assisted death on a per patient basis, or as a cumulative practice?

As MPs, should we not have some unease at the idea that this could be a highly profitable specialism for private practice? Transparency on what is being charged and who is profiting from the service would help us to understand what is happening in the system that is being established. I suggest that we bring more sunlight into the system, as we do in many other areas.

It is notable that there is little public data on what is charged, or how much revenue assisted dying generates for medical practices, in other countries where assisted dying is a private service. That is regrettable, and I hope we will not replicate that here. We do know that at Dignitas, which is a not-for-profit, the cost for a single patient is between £5,000 and £8,500 in fees alone. What is reasonable remuneration for a practice that provides assisted dying here in the UK? The term is entirely undefined, and I would be grateful for any clarity.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s keenness to get to the debate on clause 32, on the provision of the service—we will come to that in due course—but this conversation is about the amendment. To be clear, there is no expectation that assisted dying would be set up as a private enterprise or service. It would be delivered within the provision of the NHS.

[Danny Kruger]

I am glad to have that suggestion. Clause 32 is extremely broad. It basically empowers the Secretary of State to set up a service in any way they choose, potentially including in the private sector. The hon. Lady says it is not envisaged that would happen, as she is suggesting this should be an NHS service. I am grateful for the clarity, but I wish it were clearer in the Bill.

[Kim Leadbeater]

It will be.

[Danny Kruger]

I am glad to hear we will have more clarity. Having assisted suicide as an NHS service is fraught with enormous risks, along the lines we have discussed and will no doubt continue to discuss. At least we have that clarity. If the hon. Lady is going to rule out private provision and profit making or remuneration of people outside the NHS, I would be grateful for amendments specifying that. That would help to address this question.

My amendments would mean that if there is private provision of assisted suicide, as the Bill currently allows, the public and Parliament could understand who is being paid what, which I think is very appropriate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

I am grateful for that clarity, although we now seem to be less clear than we were. I understood the hon. Member for Spen Valley to be saying that there will not be private provision, but my right hon. Friend is saying that there may be.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Danny Kruger]

It would be helpful if the hon. Lady clarified whether private provision will be allowed under the Bill, because I think we have a party split. My right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire supports private provision, but the hon. Lady suggests this should be done only on the NHS.

[Kim Leadbeater]

This service, like many others, will be delivered through a range of providers, as alluded to by the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire. I understand the keenness to have this debate now, but we will come on to it further down the line. The hon. Member for East Wiltshire is right that this is really important.

[Danny Kruger]

It certainly is. Okay, so it could be either. This will be an NHS service, with all the implications for general practice, doctor-patient relations and secondary care and social care, but there will also be an opportunity to deliver it privately, without any clarity or transparency on who is being paid and how.

In answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire, this is different from cosmetic surgery, as even cosmetic surgery is regulated. In many ways, there is more regulation of the administering of Botox than there is in this Bill. The administering of assisted dying is of a significantly different category and gravity. It is appropriate and important that financial interests are clearly revealed and made public, particularly with the new intervention we are creating. If other hon. Members do not support the amendment, what provisions do they propose that would reveal where there may be potential conflicts of interest and how we may regulate this?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

I agree. Like any other aspect of what doctors and general practitioners do, this service is based on remuneration. They are professionals and should be remunerated as such, so the tariff will be important. It is also important that we do not jump ahead into defining the operating model. As I said, officials are working on this with the Bill’s promoter, and it will be made clear when we get to the relevant clauses.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Hopefully the Minister and other colleagues are reassured that, if the Committee agrees to the introduction of the voluntary assisted dying commission, monitoring will be very intense and reporting will be very robust. That might allay some of the fears that have been raised today.

[Stephen Kinnock]

As I have repeatedly said, the Government are neutral on the fundamental question of the Bill, but we are absolutely committed to ensuring it is workable should it receive Royal Assent. The role of the commission will be pivotal in ensuring that the Bill is workable and that all the necessary monitoring and regulation mechanisms are in place.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Nineteeth sitting)

Kim Leadbeater Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 5th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing amendment 361, in clause 5, page 3, line 28, at end insert—

“(7) Regulations under subsection (3)(e) are subject to the affirmative procedure.”

This is linked to Amendment 360.

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

I have nothing further to add in this debate.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)]

In the light of the suggestion from the hon. Member for Spen Valley that there will be further amendments later, when we can discuss the shape of the provision and presumably any remuneration, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 186, in clause 5, page 3, line 23, at end insert—

“(3A) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision about the training, qualifications and experience that a registered medical practitioner must have in order to act as the coordinating doctor.

(3B) The regulations must include training about—

(a) assessing capacity;

(b) assessing whether a person has been coerced or pressured by any other person.

(3C) Subject to that, the regulations may in particular provide that the required training, qualifications or experience is to be determined by a person specified in the regulations.”—(Kim Leadbeater.)

See the statement for Amendment 185.

Amendment made to amendment 186: (a), after

“(b) assessing whether a person has been coerced or pressured by any other person.”

insert

“(c) specific and up-to-date training on reasonable adjustments and safeguards for autistic people and people with a learning disability.”—(Daniel Francis.)

Amendment 186, as amended, agreed to.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I beg to move amendment 187, in clause 5, page 3, line 24, leave out subsection (4).

This amendment is consequential on NC8, which contains a single duty to consult before making regulations under various provisions of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 188, in clause 5, page 3, line 28, leave out subsection (6).

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 233, which contains a single set of provisions about the procedure for regulations under the Bill.

Amendment 192, in clause 6, page 3, line 36, leave out subsection (4).

See the statement for Amendment 188.

Amendment 199, in clause 8, page 5, line 28, leave out subsection (8).

See the statement for Amendment 187.

Amendment 200, in clause 8, page 5, line 30, leave out subsection (9).

See the statement for Amendment 188.

Amendment 206, in clause 11, page 7, line 24, leave out subsection (3).

See the statement for Amendment 188.

Amendment 211, in clause 19, page 13, line 31, leave out subsection (5).

See the statement for Amendment 187.

Amendment 212, in clause 19, page 13, line 33, leave out subsection (6).

See the statement for Amendment 188.

Amendment 213, in clause 20, page 13, line 39, leave out subsection (3).

See the statement for Amendment 188.

Amendment 215, in clause 28, page 17, line 11, leave out subsection (3).

See the statement for Amendment 188.

Amendment 216, in clause 30, page 18, line 37, leave out subsection (4).

See the statement for Amendment 188.

Amendment 217, in clause 30, page 18, line 38, leave out “that procedure” and insert “section 39”.

See the statement for Amendment 188.

Amendment 218, in clause 32, page 19, line 31, leave out subsection (4).

See the statement for Amendment 188.

Amendment 219, in clause 33, page 20, line 24, leave out subsection (5).

See the statement for Amendment 188.

Amendment 222, in clause 38, page 23, line 1, leave out subsection (2).

See the statement for Amendment 188.

Amendment 233, in clause 39, page 23, line 6, leave out subsections (3) to (5) and insert—

“(5A) The Secretary of State may not make a statutory instrument containing (whether alone or with other provision) regulations under section 5(3A), 8(6A), 30(3) or 32 unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.

(5B) Any other statutory instrument made by the Secretary of State containing regulations under this Act is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”

This amendment brings together the various provisions about the procedure for regulations and makes regulations under clauses 5 and 8 about training, qualifications and experience subject to the draft affirmative procedure.

Amendment 225, in clause 40, page 23, leave out line 23.

The amendment is consequential on Amendment 233.

Amendment 226, in clause 40, page 23, leave out line 37.

The amendment is consequential on Amendment 233.

New clause 8—Duty to consult before making regulations—

“(1) Before making regulations under section 5, 7, 8, 13, 19 or 21, the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) the Commission for Equality and Human Rights, and

(b) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(2) The persons to be consulted under subsection (1)(b) must include —

(a) persons appearing to the Secretary of State to have expertise in matters relating to whether persons have capacity, and

(b) persons appearing to the Secretary of State to have expertise in matters relating to whether persons have been coerced,

unless the Secretary of State considers that, having regard to the subject-matter of the proposed regulations, it would not be appropriate to consult such persons.”

This new clause imposes a duty to consult before making regulations under various provisions of the Bill.

[Kim Leadbeater]

This group of amendments is consequential on new clause 8, which would create a single duty for the Secretary of State to consult before making regulations under various provisions of the Bill. It would consolidate the previous requirements to consult in relation to clauses 5, 8 and 19 and expand the duty to cover additional clauses. It would require the Secretary of State to consult the Equality and Human Rights Commission and such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate. The persons to be consulted under subsection (1)(b) must include persons appearing to the Secretary of State to have expertise in matters relating to whether persons have capacity, and persons appearing to the Secretary of State to have expertise in matters relating to whether persons have been coerced.

This is an important strengthening of the Bill. It applies to multiple clauses: clauses 5, 7, 8, 13, 19 and 21. The duty to consult experts, particularly on issues around capacity and assessing for coercion, is an important change that reflects the detailed debate that the Committee has undertaken on those two important issues.

Amendment 233 brings together the various provisions about the procedure for regulations. It would make the regulations to be made under clauses 5 and 8, on training, qualifications and experience, subject to the draft affirmative procedure, so that Parliament has to debate and approve them first. Again, that would strengthen the Bill.

[Danny Kruger]

In a sense, this is a technical set of amendments that consolidate the provisions for secondary legislation. However, it reflects the seriousness of a concern that I and others have raised, which is that so much in this Bill will be left to the discretion of Ministers, often through the negative procedure.

It is important to reflect briefly on the questions that we are considering. The hon. Lady has mentioned quite a few of them, but we are talking about the training of doctors; the High Court procedure, if there is one; the substances that may be used in the administration of assisted death; the prescribing of those substances; the registration of deaths; the codes of practice to be introduced; provision through the NHS; notification to the chief medical officers; changing the schedules in the Bill, and so on.

Those are important matters. I recognise that many of them are complicated and technical, and that it is appropriate to leave them to a degree of professional and ministerial discretion. Nevertheless, my great concern, which relates to the parliamentary procedure—you may have a view on this, Mrs Harris—is that we are having this debate without the benefit of a delegated powers memorandum to explain why each power has been taken, the nature of it, the reason for taking the power and the procedure to be selected.

In a recent report on the Bill, the Hansard Society notes that under the Government’s “Guide To Making Legislation”, a delegated powers memorandum would normally be published prior to Second Reading for a private Member’s Bill on issues of conscience on which the Government are neutral. The report explains that a delegated powers memorandum gives

“details of each power in the bill, including its context, its scope, to whom the power is delegated, and the parliamentary scrutiny procedure…the reasons for taking the power; and…why.”

It points out that

“where the responsible department recommends that the Government should support the Private Member’s Bill or remain neutral then a DPM should be produced for consideration by the relevant Cabinet Committee—the Parliamentary Business and Legislation (PBL) Committee—alongside other key documents such as the explanatory notes, a legal issues memorandum, and an impact assessment”.

We have not yet had an impact assessment either.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. The amendments have been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley in consultation with the Government. This reflects the Government’s role in ensuring that the Bill is legally robust and workable. The amendments relate to the regulation-making powers and bring together various provisions about procedure and requirements for regulations and consultation.

I will address the amendments in two groups, starting with new clause 8 and its consequential amendments 187, 199 and 211. The new clause contains a duty to consult before making regulations; it is intended to consolidate three subsections that contain duties to consult before making regulations, as set out in the original draft of the Bill under clauses 5, 8 and 19. In addition to retaining the existing duties to consult before making regulations in clauses 5, 8 and 19, the new clause requires the Secretary of State to consult before making regulations under clauses 7, 13 and 21, and brings together these requirements under a single duty.

The new clause would place an additional requirement on the Secretary of State to consult the Equality and Human Rights Commission, as well as such other persons that the Secretary of State considers appropriate. The latter group must include persons with expertise in matters relating to whether persons have capacity or have been coerced, unless it would not be appropriate to consult such persons.

I turn to amendments 233, 188, 192, 215 to 219, 222, 225, 226, 212, 213, 200 and 206. There are provisions throughout the Bill, as it is currently drafted, about the procedure for making regulations. All regulations, except for those made under clause 5(3)(a), clause 8(6)(a), clause 30(3) and clause 32, are required to be made under the negative procedure. Amendment 233 would bring together the various provisions about the procedure for making regulations into a single clause, clause 39, thereby removing repetition in the Bill. The amendment seeks to achieve that by replacing subsections (3) to (5) in clause 39 with the following:

“(5A) The Secretary of State may not make a statutory instrument containing (whether alone or with other provision) regulations under section 5(3A), 8(6A), 30(3) or 32 unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.

(5B) Any other statutory instrument made by the Secretary of State containing regulations under this Act is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”

The amendment would require that any regulations made under those provisions must be laid before, and approved by, a resolution of both Houses of Parliament. This procedure, the draft affirmative procedure, will apply to regulations setting the training, qualifications and experience of both the co-ordinating and the independent doctors, establishing a code of practice and securing arrangements for the provision of assisted dying under the Act. Any other statutory instrument made under powers within the Bill will remain subject to the negative procedure.

As I have said, the Government have taken a neutral position on the substantive policy questions. These comments relate to the legal and regulatory side of the Bill, and I hope that my observations are useful to the Committee.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I have nothing further to add.

Amendment 187 agreed to.

Amendment made: 20, in clause 5, page 3, line 25, at end insert—

“(4A) Regulations under subsection (3)(a) must specify that training in respect of domestic abuse, including coercive control and financial abuse is mandatory.”—(Daniel Francis.)

This amendment would require the registered medical practitioner acting as the coordinating doctor to have undertaken training on domestic abuse, including coercive control and financial abuse.

Amendment made: 188, in clause 5, page 3, line 28, leave out subsection (6).—(Kim Leadbeater.)

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 233, which contains a single set of provisions about the procedure for regulations under the Bill.

Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

Requirement for proof of identity

[Kim Leadbeater]

I beg to move amendment 189, in clause 6, page 3, line 30, leave out

“where a person makes a first declaration”

and insert

“in relation to the making of a first declaration by a person”.

This amendment adjusts the wording so as not to suggest that a first declaration has been made before it is witnessed.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 190, in clause 6, page 3, line 31, leave out

“at the same time as that declaration is made”

and insert “before signing that declaration”.

This amendment provides that the required two forms of proof of identity must be provided before the person signs the first declaration.

Amendment 291, in clause 6, page 3, line 33, at end insert—

“(2A) At least one of the forms of identity required under subsection (2) must contain photographic proof of identity.

(2B) The person must, at the same time as that declaration is made, provide proof that they have been resident in the UK for at least a year to the coordinating doctor and the witness mentioned in section 5(2)(c)(ii).”.

This would require a person to produce a form of photographic ID and proof they have been resident in the UK when making the first declaration.

Amendment 292, in clause 6, page 3, line 34, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

This places an obligation on the Secretary of State to make regulations on proof of identity.

Amendment 191, in clause 6, page 3, line 35, at end insert—

“(3A) The coordinating doctor may witness the first declaration only if satisfied that the requirements of subsection (2) have been met.”

This amendment provides that the coordinating doctor may witness the first declaration only if satisfied that the requirements of subsection (2) are met.

Amendment 419, in clause 6, page 3, line 35, at end insert—

“(3B) The coordinating doctor may witness the first declaration only if—

(a) the coordinating doctor has conducted a preliminary discussion with the person or is satisfied that another registered medical practitioner has conducted such a discussion, and

(b) the coordinating doctor has made or seen a written record of the preliminary discussion.”

This amendment provides that the coordinating doctor may witness the first declaration only if satisfied that a preliminary discussion of the kind mentioned in clause 4 has taken place and that a written record of it has been made.

Amendment 293, in clause 6, page 3, line 36, leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative”.

This will change the process to the affirmative procedure for statutory instruments specifying acceptable forms of ID for the first declaration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

Amendment 419 provides that the co-ordinating doctor may witness the first declaration only if satisfied that a preliminary discussion of the kind mentioned in clause 4 has taken place and that a written record of it has been made. The co-ordinating doctor must have made or seen a written record of the preliminary discussion. Amendment 189 adjusts the wording so as not to suggest that a first declaration has been made before it is witnessed to clarify that proof of identity must be provided before the declaration is signed and witnessed.

Amendment 190 provides that the required two forms of proof of identity must be provided before the person signs the first declaration. Amendment 191 provides that the co-ordinating doctor may witness the first declaration only if satisfied that the requirements of clause 6(2) are met; that is to say, that the patient has provided two forms of identity to the co-ordinating doctor. This is a relatively straightforward set of amendments to tidy up the requirements around proof of identity.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

I rise to speak to amendments 291, 292 and 293, which were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). I do not intend to press them to a vote; they are probing amendments. They all relate to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley about the identification required of applicants for assisted dying. They do not change those requirements; they take a more logical and businesslike approach to proving that those requirements are met.

Amendment 291 would change the current requirements on identification and require applicants for assisted dying to produce a piece of photo ID and proof of residence in the UK for the previous year. As currently written, clause 6(2) states:

“The person must, at the same time as that declaration is made, provide two forms of proof of identity to the coordinating doctor and the witness mentioned in section 5(2)(c)(ii).”

Subsection (3) states:

“The Secretary of State may, by regulations, make provision about the forms of proof of identity that are acceptable for the purposes of subsection (2).”

Surely that is not tight enough.

In particular, the Bill as written does not specify that either form of proof of identity should be photo ID. That may be a major omission. For much less significant decisions, the law of England and Wales requires at least one form of photographic ID. For example, there is currently a requirement to have photo identity to work on the parliamentary estate, vote, or have a bus pass or railcard. None of those is as important as applying for an assisted death.

I remind hon. Members that assisted death is a process that would end in a person being issued with and then taking a mixture of lethal drugs. In a hospital setting where drugs are dispensed, rigorous processes are undertaken to verify the patient. Drug errors are not uncommon. The previous Health and Social Care Committee’s report into pharmacy witnessed how clinical practice was being improved to reduce drug errors. Given that a lethal dose is dispensed as part of this process, the identification mechanisms are weak and should be addressed in this preliminary stage through the provisions set out in this amendment. It is possible that the wrong person could be prescribed the medication. That would be an extreme case, but we are talking about creating a wholly new power that would relate to life and death. We are talking about making assisted dying available to people who are, in many cases, extremely distressed. People in extreme circumstances will sometimes do extreme things. We should expect some extreme cases and seek to guard against them.

Amendment 291 would provide such a safeguard. The Bill says that to qualify for assisted dying, applicants must have been resident in the UK for at least a year, but it does not ask them to provide any proof of that residence. In such a serious matter, we surely cannot simply accept someone’s word that they live in the UK. Making that a requirement without a test to establish it de-values the importance of the criteria for qualifying.

Amendment 292 would change clause 6(3), which currently reads,

“The Secretary of State may, by regulations, make provision about the forms of proof of identity that are acceptable for the purposes of subsection (2).”

The amendment would change that “may” to a “must”, as the former treats the identification process with reduced seriousness. If the word “may” stays in legislation, there is no obligation to have rigour in the identification process. As drafted, the Bill is more open for abuse.

Amendment 293 seeks to place the regulations concerning identification under the affirmative procedure, which the hon. Member for East Wiltshire mentioned earlier. Assisted dying is so important that no regulations made under it should be drawn using the negative procedure. As Members will know, if a statutory instrument is made under the affirmative procedure, it must be approved by Parliament within a certain timeframe, which is usually 28 or 40 days. If that does not happen, the change to the law made by the statutory instrument will not take place. In the Bill as drafted, these regulations are covered by the negative procedure, which means that if and when the Secretary of State decides to change them, they could go through on the nod unless Members raised an objection. A statutory instrument laid through the negative procedure becomes law on the day the Minister signs it and automatically remains law unless a motion rejecting it is passed by either House within 40 sitting days.

Placing all changes to regulations under the affirmative procedure would ensure that we have scrutiny by Parliament. We should all approve this. Our responsibility for this legislation will not end when and if it becomes an Act of Parliament. These amendments speak to tighter safeguards and parliamentary scrutiny for all new regulations made by the Secretary of State in relation to identity and residence. All hon. Members should support them.

[Danny Kruger]

I will quickly echo the points well made by the hon. Member for Bradford West in support of the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for York Central. It is important to specify the form of identity that will be presented. The person presenting themselves for an assisted death needs to be who they say they are. At the moment, the power to specify the forms of proof of identity has no minimum requirements. As written, it does not require the Secretary of State to specify what is acceptable.

Two specific aspects we have to pay particular care to are age and residency. The process must be accessible only to over-18s. I am concerned that we rejected amendments yesterday that would have prevented people under 18 having the conversation. In light of that, it is even more important that we make it clear that people who access assisted death must be adults. We need to ensure that the forms of identity are specified and that Parliament can satisfy itself that they are robust.

[Kim Leadbeater]

We did not reject proposals for the preliminary discussion not to be taken by people under 18. We actually put a clause into the Bill that would ensure that the preliminary discussion was not taken with someone under 18.

[Danny Kruger]

That is right. The preliminary discussion will not, but there is nothing to stop the conversation beginning before the person is 18. I know they cannot formally begin the process of an assisted death, but the concern—although I will not revisit the debate—was that the topic should not be raised or discussed with children, and we did not succeed in that.

The proposal is to ensure that we have proper ID—a passport, driving licence or other combined photo ID and proof of age, so a birth certificate must be paired with something if it is to be robust. We think such questions should be reflected more clearly in the Bill. All sorts of ID would not be appropriate, such as student ID, a sworn statement with no underpinning official record and other such things, which we want to avoid.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. We have the term “ordinarily resident” in the UK in clause 1. Obviously if the Committee sees fit to accept the amendment it would change to “resident”, which is a looser term. This matter would also be one for the Home Office, as the custodian of our rules and regulations on immigration, but my sense would be that if we stick with “ordinarily resident” then someone who is not ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom would not qualify for assisted dying.

As the Bill currently stands, the Secretary of State has the power but not the obligation to set these requirements in regulations. This amendment would remove this discretion and require the Secretary of State to specify what forms of ID must be provided.

Amendment 293 ensures that regulations on acceptable forms of proof of identify must be approved by both Houses of Parliament before coming into force, by requiring these regulations to follow the affirmative rather than the negative procedure. As I said earlier, the Government’s position is neutral, but I hope my observations—

[Kim Leadbeater]

This is a thought based on the comments by the hon. Member for Reigate. The issue of photographic ID is worth giving consideration. Photo ID is used in multiple settings for different reasons. My slight concern is that some of the people we are thinking about with this Bill would be older and I think of some of my own family members who no longer have driving licences, passports or potentially any form of photographic ID. I would be concerned this could be a barrier for terminally ill people. Considering we are making this a robust process, which I totally agree with, I would be concerned that might present an issue.

[The Chair]

Order. I have asked for interventions to be short and not speeches.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I call Kim Leadbeater, who now has the opportunity to say anything she likes.

[Kim Leadbeater]

You will be delighted, Chair, that I have nothing further to add.

Amendment 189 agreed to.

Amendments made: 190, in clause 6, page 3, line 31, leave out

“at the same time as that declaration is made”

and insert “before signing that declaration”.

This amendment provides that the required two forms of proof of identity must be provided before the person signs the first declaration.

Amendment 191, in clause 6, page 3, line 35, at end insert—

“(3A) The coordinating doctor may witness the first declaration only if satisfied that the requirements of subsection (2) have been met.”

This amendment provides that the coordinating doctor may witness the first declaration only if satisfied that the requirements of subsection (2) are met.

Amendment 419, in clause 6, page 3, line 35, at end insert—

“(3B) The coordinating doctor may witness the first declaration only if—

(a) the coordinating doctor has conducted a preliminary discussion with the person or is satisfied that another registered medical practitioner has conducted such a discussion, and

(b) the coordinating doctor has made or seen a written record of the preliminary discussion.”

This amendment provides that the coordinating doctor may witness the first declaration only if satisfied that a preliminary discussion of the kind mentioned in clause 4 has taken place and that a written record of it has been made.

Amendment 192, in clause 6, page 3, line 36, leave out subsection (4).—(Kim Leadbeater.)

See the statement for Amendment 188.

Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

First doctor’s assessment (coordinating doctor)

Amendment proposed: 296, in clause 7, page 4, line 2, leave out from “must” to end of line 3, and insert

“after a first declaration is made by a person, arrange a time and which is convenient for both the medical practitioner and the person date that does not jeopardise the care of other patients, to carry out the first assessment.”—(Naz Shah.)

This amendment replaces the requirement that the coordinating doctor to arrange a first assessment as soon as practicable with a requirement to arrange it for a mutually convenient time which doesn’t jeopardise the care of other patients.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 127, in clause 7, page 4, line 2, leave out

“as soon as reasonably practicable”

and insert “within 10 working days”.

The amendment requires the coordinating doctor to carry out an assessment under the Act within ten working days.

Amendment 128, in clause 7, page 4, line 23, leave out “as soon as practicable” and insert “within 10 working days”.

This amendment would require the coordinating doctor to refer a person within 10 working days rather than as soon as practicable to another registered medical practitioner to carry out the second assessment.

Amendment 129, in clause 8, page 4, line 29, leave out

“as soon as reasonably practicable,”

and insert “within 10 working days”.

This amendment would require the independent doctor to carry out the second assessment within 10 working days rather than as soon as practicable to another registered medical practitioner to carry out the second assessment.

Amendment 130, in clause 16, page 11, line 19, leave out “as soon as practicable,” and insert “within 10 working days”.

This amendment would require the coordinating doctor, where they are a practitioner with the person’s GP practice to record the making of the declaration or statement, or the refusal to make the declaration or statement, in the person’s medical records within 10 working days rather than as soon as practicable.

Amendment 131, in clause 16, page 11, line 23, leave out “as soon as practicable,” and insert “within 10 working days”.

This amendment would require the coordinating doctor, where they are not practitioner with the person’s GP practice, to give a registered medical practitioner from that practice notice of the making of the declaration or statement, or the refusal to make the declaration or statement, in the person’s medical records within 10 working days rather than as soon as practicable.

Amendment 132, in clause 16, page 11, line 27, leave out “as soon as practicable,” and insert “within 10 working days”.

This amendment would require the coordinating doctor, where they are not a practitioner with the person’s GP practice to record the making of the declaration or statement, or the refusal to make the declaration or statement, in the person’s medical records within 10 working days rather than as soon as practicable.

Amendment 133, in clause 17, page 11, line 38, leave out “as soon as practicable,” and insert “within 10 working days”.

This amendment would require the coordinating doctor, where they are not a practitioner with the person’s GP practice to record the making of the declaration or statement, or the refusal to make the declaration or statement, in the person’s medical records within 10 working days rather than as soon as practicable.

Amendment 134, in clause 17, page 12, line 2, leave out “as soon as practicable,” and insert “within 10 working days”.

This amendment would require the medical practitioner to whom notice or indication of the cancellation of declaration is given to notify a registered medical professional from the person’s GP practice within 10 working days rather than as soon as practicable.

Amendment 135, in clause 17, page 12, line 5, leave out “as soon as practicable,” and insert “within 10 working days”.

Amendment 136, in clause 21, page 14, line 12, leave out “as soon as practicable,” and insert “within 10 working days”.

Amendment 137, in clause 21, page 14, line 15, leave out “as soon as practicable,” and insert “within 10 working days”.

Amendment 138, in clause 21, page 14, line 18, leave out “as soon as practicable,” and insert “within 10 working days”.

Amendment 139, in clause 22, page 14, line 27, leave out “as soon as practicable,” and insert “within 10 working days”.

Amendment 140, in clause 22, page 14, line 30, leave out “as soon as practicable,” and insert “within 10 working days”.

Amendment 141, in clause 22, page 14, line 33, leave out “as soon as practicable,” and insert “within 10 working days”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

Okay. I might address the question at a future point, because the issue of how we reflect on these proceedings outside this place has come up privately.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I do not consider for one second that there is any ill intent behind the amendment, but I am slightly concerned about the language, which is what I think my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley meant. The issue is the suggestion that a doctor would, in any circumstances, jeopardise the care of other patients. We are talking about doctors a lot, and we have the utmost respect for medical practitioners, but I imagine that that would be a worrying concept to have in writing from their perspective.

[Danny Kruger]

I respect that point, and it is a fair charge: that doctors would not do this. Nevertheless, as I have been stressing, we are in uncharted territory, and there is a genuine concern about the resource implications of the Bill.

The Bill clarifies and emphasises things in lots of other places—“for the avoidance of doubt” and so on—and the amendment would clarify that the procedure under the Bill would not take precedence in a clinician’s time over other matters that they also consider to be pressing and urgent. That is an appropriate safeguard for doctors.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Paul]

I think most points have been covered, so I will be brief. The point of the amendment 296 is to recognise the challenges faced by medical practitioners in the NHS. It is really well intended. I suspect that there are different ways to do this, which we could discuss, but the amendment would recognise that medical practitioners will come under a lot of pressure.

The very nature of the assisted dying process means there is pressure to move quickly—for obvious reasons. If someone is in pain and an assisted death is what they have chosen to do, they are going to want to move forward at pace. It cannot be as usual, with however long it can take in the NHS—often for a normal procedure. The point of the amendment is simply to be cognisant of the fact that other patients, too, require healthcare. This comes back to the debate we have had many times about what is healthcare and what is not. It is one of the issues that comes up when we have assisted dying amalgamated with general healthcare in the NHS.

We are hearing concerns from doctors on the frontline. In written evidence, eight doctors, six of them GPs, say that the NHS lacks both the time and the capacity to create the new role of co-ordinating doctor with its grave responsibilities. The statistics bear out their concerns. In a 2024 survey by the Royal College of General Practitioners, over 40% of UK GPs who responded said that they were “unlikely” to be practising still in five years’ time; 40% feel stressed to the point of “not coping” at least once a week; and 79% are concerned about having fewer GPs at their practice and its impact on the quality of care that their practice can deliver. The reality of the matter is that we have to recognise that the introduction of assisted dying places another pressure on our health system, and to try to address that head on.

[Kim Leadbeater]

The hon. Lady is making some interesting points, but would she agree that we are talking about not new patients, but existing patients who are already in their last few months of life? It will not create a whole new pressure on the health service, because they are already receiving treatment.

[Rebecca Paul]

I thank the hon. Member for that point. There will absolutely be some occasions where that is the case, but assisted dying is a different pathway—and we have a whole Bill on it, so there will be other formalities and safeguards. We are all here to make sure that rigour is applied to that pathway. With the best will in the world, there will always be more work and pressure, especially time pressure, on doctors. That time pressure will be critical.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

These amendments introduce requirements on the timing within which the co-ordinating doctor must carry out a first assessment once the first declaration is made by a person. I will turn first to amendment 296. As currently drafted, clause 7(1) requires that the co-ordinating doctor must carry out a first assessment

“as soon as reasonably practicable”

after a person has made a first declaration. Amendment 296 would require that after the first declaration is made, the co-ordinating doctor must arrange a mutually convenient time and date for the first assessment to take place, but it removes the stipulation that the assessment must be carried out as soon as reasonably practicable. The amendment would also require the date and time agreed not to jeopardise the care of other patients. The effect of the amendment may be to lengthen the period between the first declaration and the first assessment, in some cases.

Amendments 127 to 141 seek to ensure that the assessments, declarations and statements made throughout the Bill are finalised and recorded within 10 working days of being started. The amendments achieve this by inserting the term “within 10 working days” in place of

“as soon as reasonably practicable”

in clauses 7, 8, 16, 17, 21 and 22. This would put in place a time-bound limit that the medical practitioner must adhere to when carrying out the first and second assessments, when recording information in medical records at various stages, including the High Court declaration, and when recording other matters in medical records.

Our assessment suggests that in most circumstances, although it would depend on the facts of a particular case, the requirement to do an action as soon as practicable would generally amount to a requirement to do the action sooner than in 10 working days’ time. In terms of the operational effects, having a set timeline may give greater certainty to individuals seeking assistance. However, it may limit doctors’ discretion to set the timeline based around the patient’s wishes. These are matters for the Committee to weigh up and consider.

[Kim Leadbeater]

That has been a very useful discussion. I have nothing to add.

[Naz Shah]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Opher]

That is an interesting point, but we are not discussing organ donation, and we are dealing in a different environment here; the patients we are talking about are about to die, and all we are giving them is the right to control the moment and manner of that death. I acknowledge that using a psychiatrist in organ donation has its benefits, but in this service, getting every patient—who, for example, are frail and ill by definition, because they are about to die—to see a psychiatrist is frankly neither applicable nor appropriate.

[Kim Leadbeater]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. If we think about some of the people we have met—the families who have lost loved ones to terminal illness and the patients who are terminally ill—they are very clear in their decision. For me, it would be another barrier to those patients, who are dying people, to make them see a psychiatrist for every single case.

[Dr Opher]

I think it would create a barrier. We need to make sure that we deliver legislation that does what we are trying to do, which is to enable someone with a terminal illness, who has full capacity, to make a decision about the end of their life.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope the Committee has found these observations useful.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I will do the easy bits first. As the Minister said, amendment 370 in my name is a drafting change to the definition of a psychiatrist, which is obviously very important. These useful amendments have enabled us to have this discussion, and they all come from a good place in trying to enhance safeguarding within the Bill.

On organ donation, my sister-in-law has had two kidney transplants. On neither occasion, to my understanding, did a psychiatrist speak to either her or the organ donor, who in one instance was her brother—my sister-in-law would be very upset that I have mentioned her in Parliament. My understanding of the law is that someone may be referred to a mental health specialist. I am happy to be corrected if that is not the case, but I do not think a consultation with a psychiatrist is compulsory.

As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, it is absolutely right that we support amendment 6. From the start, I have been clear that we should move from “may” to “must” in referring to a psychiatrist where either doctor has any doubt. That is a sensible approach, and it covers most of today’s discussion.

However, introducing a whole new system that would almost sit alongside the Bill, and that would change the process, is unnecessary. Those are my conclusions, based on what has been another very interesting discussion.

[Daniel Francis]

I will not come back on anything but, obviously, I will press some of these amendments in due course.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 294, in clause 7, page 4, line 5, after “doctor” insert

“based on provided evidence that”.—(Daniel Francis.)

This amendment would require that the doctor bases their assessment on provided evidence.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twentieth sitting)

Kim Leadbeater Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship again, Sir Roger.

Amendment 301 would prolong the first period of reflection, after which point the independent doctor can conduct the second assessment. In the original draft of the Bill, the first period of reflection is seven days, but the amendment would extend that period to 14 days. That means 14 days would have to pass between the time that the co-ordinating doctor has made their statement following the first assessment, and the independent doctor carrying out the second assessment.

Amendment 317 would increase the duration of the period of reflection before a person may make a second declaration from 14 days to 28 days. It relates to cases where a person’s death is not reasonably expected within one month of the date of the court’s declaration.

Amendments 314 and 315 would increase the duration of the second period of reflection before a person may make a second declaration, in cases where a person’s death is reasonably expected within one month of the date of the court’s declaration, from 48 hours to seven days. They would also introduce a requirement for a mandatory immediate referral for urgent specialist palliative care. The requirement would be introduced into the definition of the second period of reflection. It is unclear what impact it would have on the duration of the period of reflection. The amendments do not say who should be responsible for making the referral or where it should be recorded. The drafting is also ambiguous as to what happens if a person does not consent to such a referral or care.

I hope these observations are helpful to the Committee in considering the Bill and the amendments put forward by various Members. Whether these amendments should form part of the Bill is a matter for the Committee to decide.

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

I have nothing to add on this group of amendments. I am confident that the Bill as drafted already includes significant periods of reflection. Bearing in mind that we are putting dying people through a very lengthy process already, I remain confident that the periods of reflection are adequate as set out in the Bill.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

I have a couple of additional comments. We talked last week about the reflection periods. I referred to the fact that when even someone buys something from a shop, they have 28 days to return it; when they are deciding on whether to have an assisted death, there is a great deal more at stake. During that debate, someone asked, “What if someone had a prognosis of just one month?”, but clause 13 has an option for a fast-track process in that situation—the person would be able to access the service in 48 hours.

I beg to differ with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, the Bill’s promoter, who said that we have enough reflection periods in the Bill. Yes, there are reflection periods, but they come after the panel’s decision. The reality is that the NHS is under so much duress, with patients waiting weeks to see their GP for anything other than urgent treatment, that getting an appointment with another GP in seven days is unlikely; it is unlikely to happen given how uncommon that is at the moment. It is right that doctors are able to triage their patients to prioritise those who require medical intervention to keep them well, to prevent hospital admission, or to stop them deteriorating or even dying.

The Government are trying to protect the NHS, and the best way of achieving that is to ensure that medical interventions are provided at the earliest opportunity before a patient deteriorates. In some cases, a medical appointment may need to take priority over an appointment for an assisted death. If someone who is dying has longer—even just a further week—in which to reflect, it removes the pressure from GPs and consultants, and enables them to prioritise properly their patients. It does not build up false expectation in patients that they have a right to a rapid consultation process. Likewise, we know that it can currently take a few weeks for patients to see another consultant, if not months or even over a year. It is therefore more helpful for the patient to have a more realistic period of reflection before moving to the next stage of their assessment.

Issues of such intensity as someone planning to take their own life should not be rushed. We know from all the work that has been undertaken on suicide that other interventions and conversations can help with reflection and reconsideration. It is important that people are given this opportunity. In their first raising the matter with a doctor, the doctor would have provided a lot of information about alternatives to the patient, such as what treatment options would be available. Perhaps they would have had a discussion with a palliative medicine consultant to review their options. There needs to be time for a patient to really reflect on all this new information. If the patient does want to explore assisted dying, there will also be all the conversations about drugs and their impact, which we will come to when we discuss later clauses.

Amendment 317 to clause 13 seeks to increase the reflection period from 14 days to 28 days. I gently suggest that we should have the reflection period before the decision, whether it be by the judge or a panel, to give people the right amount of time to consider; currently, the reflection period is afterwards. This is such a monumental decision that people should be able to contemplate all other options available. As it is, the process is rushed, and a patient could be caught up in the moment of concentrating on getting through the stages. I appreciate that others have suggested that once we have got past that stage, with the paperwork and all those things out of the way, then there is time to reflect. During the process, however, the patient has not had time to consider the options in making their decision. I am not convinced that there is enough reflection during, as opposed to after, the process.

Amendment 314 seeks to increase the reflection period from 48 hours to seven days for patients who have been given a month to live. In that case, seven days is quite adequate time to reflect on the information they have received to make informed choices. If this is about autonomy, which my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has talked about many a time, it is important for people to have choices. To have that autonomy is surely to have the options in front of us and be able to consider them in detail.

In considering whether to sit on this Bill Committee, I slept on the decision. I can usually make instantaneous decisions, but knowing the amount of work, knowing that I was new to the subject, and knowing the things that I knew then—not the things that I know now—it was a big decision for me. I was even thinking about how I would manage the workload. We are talking about something that is not at all comparable. We are talking about somebody who will be taking a decision to potentially exercise the right—if the Bill becomes law—to an assisted death. That is really important for me.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: 195, in clause 8, page 4, line 40, leave out “statement” and insert “report”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 420.

Amendment 421, in clause 8, page 5, line 4, leave out subsection (5) and insert—

“(5) After carrying out the second assessment, the independent doctor must—

(a) make a report about the assessment (which must meet the requirements of regulations under subsection (5A)), and

(b) give a copy of the report to—

(i) the person who was assessed,

(ii) the coordinating doctor,

(iii) if neither the independent doctor nor the coordinating doctor is a practitioner with the person’s GP practice, a registered medical practitioner with that practice, and

(iv) any other person specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(5A) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision about the content and form of the report.

(5B) The regulations must provide that the report must—

(a) contain a statement indicating whether the independent doctor is satisfied as to all of the matters mentioned in subsection (2)(a) to (e);

subsection (2)(a)

(b) contain an explanation of why the independent doctor is, or (as the case may be) is not, so satisfied;

(c) contain a statement indicating whether the independent doctor is satisfied as to the following—

(i) that a record of the preliminary discussion has been included in the person’s medical records;

(ii) that the person signed the first declaration;

(iii) that the making of the first declaration has been recorded in the person’s medical records;

(iv) that the first declaration has not been cancelled;

(d) be signed and dated by the independent doctor.”—(Kim Leadbeater.)

This amendment provides that the independent doctor must make a report about the second assessment, and makes provision about the report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

Amendment 348 seeks to add an additional requirement to clause 8(5). This would mean that, where the independent doctor is satisfied that the requirements under clause 8(2) have been met, they must

“inform the person’s usual or treating doctor and, where relevant, the doctor who referred the person to the independent doctor, of the outcome of the assessment.”

Some elements of amendment 348 duplicate requirements that already appear in the Bill, such as the requirement in clause 8(5)(b) for the doctor to inform the co-ordinating doctor of the outcome, including providing a copy of the statement.

The amendment would also overlap with the requirements in clause 16 for the co-ordinating doctor to make entries in the person’s medical record that must include the original statement or declaration. Where the co-ordinating doctor is not with the person’s GP practice, they must also give notice to a registered medical practitioner with the person’s GP practice of the outcome of the assessments.

Amendment 303 seeks to prevent a person from seeking multiple second assessments from different independent doctors. It places a requirement on the independent doctor to confirm

“that no other practitioner has undertaken a second assessment for the same person.”

This amendment creates the risk of a medical practitioner inadvertently committing an offence if there is no centralised record-keeping. It may also have the impact of preventing the person seeking assistance from obtaining a second opinion, as provided for in clause 10. Under the amendment, as drafted, it is unclear how this is intended to interact with the possibility of an independent doctor’s becoming unable or unwilling to continue to act as the independent doctor following the second assessment, when an alternative independent doctor may therefore be required.

On amendment 458, as the Bill stands, clause 10 provides that if, following the second assessment, the independent doctor refuses to make the statement confirming that they are satisfied that matters in clause 8(2)(a) to (e) are met, the co-ordinating doctor may refer the person to a different registered medical practitioner who meets the requirements of clause 8(6), and is able and willing to carry out an assessment mentioning clause 8(2). The effect of the amendment is to restrict the circumstances in which the co-ordinating doctor can make a referral under clause 10(1) to a different registered medical practitioner to only when there has been a material change of circumstances. It is not clear from the amendment who is required to establish that there has been a material change in circumstances and/or how that will be proved. That may cause some uncertainty for the co-ordinating doctor.

I now turn to amendment 459. Clause 10 provides that if, following the second assessment, the independent doctor refuses to make the statement that they are satisfied that the person meets the criteria in clause 8(2)(a) to 8(2)(e) when conducting the second assessment, the co-ordinating doctor may, if requested to do so by the person who made the first declaration, refer that person to a different registered medical practitioner who meets the requirements of clause 8(6) and is able and willing to carry out an assessment of the kind mentioned in clause 8(2).

The effect of the amendment is that, where such a referral is made to the registered medical practitioner under clause 10(1), the co-ordinating doctor is required to provide them with the report by the independent doctor setting out their reasons for refusal. If the new registered medical practitioner reaches a different conclusion from the original independent doctor, they must produce a report setting out why they disagree. The two reports must be made available to any subsequent decision maker under the Bill, and to the commissioner. This additional requirement for reports on the reasons for refusal or differences in opinion may make the process of seeking assistance longer and add to capacity demands on co-ordinating and independent doctors.

Turning to amendment 460, clause 10(3) provides that if, following the second assessment, the independent doctor refuses to make the statement mentioned in clause 8(5), the co-ordinating doctor may make one referral for a second opinion. The effect of the amendment is to remove the word “particular” from clause 10(3), which says that only one second opinion may be sought

“In consequence of a particular first declaration made by a person.”

The amendment is unclear and could have several possible effects in practice. For example, it could have the effect of limiting the circumstances in which a referral can be made under clause 10(1) to the first time a person makes a first declaration.

I hope that these observations were helpful to the Committee.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I associate myself with the Minister’s comments regarding the other amendments in the group; however, I listened carefully to the debate on amendment 459 and the points made by the hon. Member for Richmond Park, my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud and the Minister. My view on that amendment has changed: I do think independence is really important in the doctor’s opinions during the normal process that the Bill sets out. However, it is a really fair point to make that if the independent doctor refuses the patient, there needs to be transparency about that, and it is important that everybody involved in the process can see how that decision has been made. That is a really valid point. It is a good example of how this Bill Committee is operating, and should be operating, in that we have been listening to different views and opinions.

I take on board the Minister’s point on capacity. We need to be aware of that. We will hopefully debate the third layer later today. That layer may be a panel of experts who are there to oversee the full picture of the patient journey. For them to see what has happened with the doctors that they have interacted with is very important. Therefore, I am minded to support amendment 459.

[Danny Kruger]

I want to respond to a point made by the hon. Member for Stroud. It is relevant to the whole debate about whether we are talking about a medical treatment at all. He made the point, in respect of the question of a second or subsequent referral to an independent doctor, that it is appropriate in medicine to have second opinions; he said that that is normal in medicine, and he is absolutely right. Indeed, there is nothing to stop a patient seeking a third, fourth or any number of opinions if they want to do that and can get a doctor to consider them. The fact is that what we are discussing here is not a medical diagnosis—that is not what is being asked for when someone goes to see the second doctor, or indeed the first. What they are asking for is permission to proceed with the process.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I am satisfied that the items contained within the clause have been adequately debate. I do not therefore propose to permit a clause stand part debate.

Clause 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9

Doctors’ assessments: further provision

[Kim Leadbeater]

I beg to move amendment 201, in clause 9, page 5, line 36, leave out “and their medical records” and insert

“, examine such of their medical records as appear to the assessing doctor to be relevant,”.

This amendment provides that the duty on an assessing doctor to examine a person’s medical records is limited to records appearing to the doctor to be relevant.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 422, in clause 9, page 5, line 36, after “records” insert

“make such enquiries of professionals who are providing or have recently provided health or social care to the person as the assessing doctor considers appropriate,”.

This amendment requires an assessing doctor to make such enquiries of professionals who are providing, or have recently provided, health or social care to the person as the assessing doctor considers appropriate.

Amendment 468, in clause 9, page 5, line 37, at end insert—

“(aa) ask the person why they are seeking an assisted death.”

Amendment 423, in clause 9, page 6, line 20, at end insert—

“(2A) To inform their assessment, the assessing doctor must—

(a) consider whether they should consult a health professional or social care professional with qualifications in, or experience of, a matter relevant to the person being assessed;

(b) consult such a professional if they consider that there is a need to do so.

(2B) Where an assessing doctor consults a professional under subsection (2A)(b), the assessing doctor must give a written record of the consultation to the other assessing doctor.”

This amendment requires the assessing doctor to consider whether they should consult specialist health or social care professionals, and to consult them if they consider there is a need to do so. A record of any consultation must be shared with the other assessing doctor.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Amendment 201 provides that the duty on an assessing doctor to examine a person’s medical records is limited to records appearing to the doctor to be relevant, which makes sense. Amendment 422 requires an assessing doctor to make such inquiries of professionals who are providing, or have recently provided, health or social care to the person as the assessing doctor considers appropriate. Amendment 423 requires the assessing doctor to consider whether they should consult health or social care professionals, and to consult them if they consider there is a need to do so. A record of any consultation must be shared with the other assessing doctor.

The amendments seek to emphasise the importance of taking a holistic and multidisciplinary approach to the assessments by both doctors. The Bill as drafted provides that the assessing doctor must

“make such other enquiries as the assessing doctor considers appropriate”

when making the first and second assessments. With the amendments, I have sought to strengthen that language, by being much more explicit and making specific reference to consulting health and social care professionals. I have done so in response to the evidence we have received from professionals such as nurses and social workers, who often spend a significant amount of time with terminally ill adults.

It is clearly right that the assessing doctors should have access to all relevant details of a person’s medical records. If the records show that the person has recently been receiving health or social care, that may impact their application, so the doctors have to consult the providers of that care. As is the case at all stages in the process, records should be kept of any and all such discussions, and reports should be shared where appropriate.

Taken together, the amendments would ensure that the doctors’ assessments are thorough and comprehensive, and have taken into consideration the views and opinions of any wider health and social care team that may be working with a patient.

[Danny Kruger]

I will speak briefly to each of the amendments in this group. I will allow my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate to speak to the amendment in her name, but I state clearly that I very much support it. In my view, it is very important that the doctor asks the simple question of the patient, “Why do you want an assisted death?” The question is not being asked at the moment.

I respect the points that the hon. Member for Spen Valley has just made about amendment 201, and that the amendment may be intended to focus assessments on the information that is relevant. Nevertheless, it would introduce subjectivity into what is deemed relevant, and by narrowing the scope of the review of patient records, it could unintentionally allow for incomplete assessments, thereby undermining the safeguards that we all want to see. The risk is that potentially crucial medical history, including past mental health concerns, poor coercion indicators or undisclosed diagnoses, might be overlooked.

I call the Committee’s attention to the evidence from the British Geriatrics Society, which raised concerns that the definition of terminal illness in the Bill is often vague and risks misclassification, especially for older patients. Limiting the review of medical records could exacerbate that issue, as doctors may not have a full picture of the patient’s long-term prognosis and their mental health history. The General Medical Council has called for strong regulatory oversight to ensure that eligibility assessments are thorough.

Allowing doctors to determine which records are relevant, without standardised criteria for that judgment in the Bill, risks inconsistency and potential misdiagnosis. The criteria should include diagnosis and prognosis, treatment history, consultation, second opinions and mental health history. Consideration should also be given to disclosures of domestic violence and abuse, or patterns in medical records that might indicate domestic abuse without explicit disclosure, such as frequent visits for unexplained pain, chronic pain complaints, mental health concerns such as anxiety and depression, inconsistent explanations for injuries, and multiple visits to different healthcare providers. All of that should be properly considered by the assessing doctor.

I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that in the Netherlands, 1% to 2% of assessments annually—a significant number when we consider the volumes we are talking about—are deemed “not careful” under the law. Other countries do not have adequate ability to look into the data, but that is significant, and it is often due to inadequate consultation or documentation. I also draw attention to the fact that in our country, I am afraid to say, the cause of death listed by doctors is too frequently inaccurate. Analysis of postmortems suggests that one in 20 deaths have been wrongly recorded. Clearly, mistakes are made in medical records, and therefore it is particularly appropriate to require doctors to give complete consideration to the full medical history of the patient.

I recognise very much that we are trying to create a Bill that works in practice; nevertheless, I think we can emphasise streamlining and efficiency at the expense of patient safety, and we are doing that here. If we tell doctors that they are only required to sift through records that appear relevant to them—a quick skim of recent notes, a glance at the obvious items in a medical history—that may sound efficient, streamlined and practical, but it is likely to leave the vulnerable exposed, in particular when social workers and psychiatrists are not involved at this early stage, as they plainly should be. No multidisciplinary team is looking at the patient at this stage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

I will come on to that. I agree with him: amendment 422 is a very helpful amendment, and I support that. It is a very good suggestion that wider consultation should be made, and it is a point that we have been trying to make with amendments throughout. I recognise that that would enhance the safeguards in the Bill—I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

Amendment 422 seeks to introduce an additional requirement that the assessing doctor must consider whether to consult health or social care practitioners who are providing, or have recently provided, care to the patient. The amendment is presented as addressing previously expressed concerns, but I regret to say that I feel it is excessively weak. It is a positive step in recognising the issue, but it does not ensure a broader and more informed assessment of a patient’s condition and external influences.

Patients with terminal illnesses often receive care from palliative care teams, social workers or community nurses who might have crucial insights into their wellbeing and the potential external pressures on them. The British Psychological Society has highlighted that mental health and social pressures are often overlooked in assisted dying requests in other countries. Social workers and allied health professionals play a key role in assessing whether a patient feels pressurised due to financial, social or familial burdens. As I have repeatedly said and we will debate further in due course, in my view it is very important that that assessment comes earlier in the process.

We have evidence from doctors—I will not cite it at length—pointing out that independent doctors who refuse assisted dying requests are often ignored, and patients are simply referred to another doctor willing to approve the request, as we have discussed. Consultation with health and social care professionals could act as an additional safeguard against that practice. Although the amendment introduces an obligation to consult other professionals, it leaves it to the discretion of the assessing doctor. It relies on the doctor’s subjective judgment

“if they consider that there is a need”.

I think that is too weak for assisted dying, where consistency is so critical. One doctor might consult a palliative care specialist to explore pain relief options, while another might not, assuming that they understand the patient’s suffering sufficiently. The variability in the Bill—this discretion—undermines fairness and safeguarding.

There is also a lack of accountability in what is a very sensitive process. There is no requirement to document the consideration process, which weakens oversight in a context where errors could be fatal. I respect the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire that we must not police conversations and that being prescriptive may encourage a tick-box approach. I am afraid that we risk that tick-box approach if this amendment is all that we do on this subject. We can imagine a scenario in which a doctor simply makes a note in the record with little underpinning substance.

There is also no obligation to act on the specialist input, so the duty ends at the consultation. There is no requirement to integrate the findings of the additional input that the doctor has received, which is a glaring flaw in what is an irreversible procedure that is being authorised. Finally, there is insufficient rigour for the ethical stakes. This discretionary duty is too weak to catch the difficult cases.

[Kim Leadbeater]

On the hon. Member’s point about recording those consultations, amendment 423 states in its proposed new subsection (2B):

“Where an assessing doctor consults a professional…the assessing doctor must give a written record of the consultation to the other assessing doctor.”So the consultation is recorded.

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and that is very welcome. My concern is that there is no obligation to do anything about it. There is no obligation for the doctor to integrate the conclusions of the additional professionals that they have consulted into their treatment. I recognise that that provision is valuable and I welcome the amendments, but I suggest that they do not go far enough.

Let me use a hypothetical example to bring my point home to the Committee. Imagine a woman with terminal lung cancer asking to end her life. Her assessing doctor considers consulting a palliative care specialist for symptom control or a social worker to check on her home life, but decides, “My notes are enough. There’s no need for that.” What if the patient’s pain could be eased with a new approach that the doctor does not know about? What if her family’s pushing her to spare them the burden of her care goes unnoticed without a social worker’s input? The lady might die needlessly or be denied treatment unfairly.

The discretionary duty that the amendment would introduce essentially collapses because it does not force the broader scrutiny that patients deserve. The amendment sees the problem, but it is too feeble: it is too discretionary, too vague and too unenforceable for a choice as profound as assisted dying. While I will support it, I do not think it goes far enough.

Amendment 423 builds on amendment 422 by requiring that if the assessing doctor consults a specialist, a written record of that consultation must be shared, as the hon. Member for Spen Valley just mentioned. It is critical for transparency, consistency and accountability in decision making. In high-stakes cases, such as assisted dying requests, paper trails matter. Without a formal record, one assessing doctor might dismiss concerns raised by another professional without accountability—a point made by the hon. Member for Richmond Park.

As I pointed out in an intervention on the hon. Member for Richmond Park, it is remarkable how few jurisdictions around the world have such safeguards. The American model in Oregon, Washington and California does not track how many doctors a patient consults before finding one willing to approve an assisted dying request, so we do not know the extent of doctor shopping abroad. Canada’s system does not require refusals to be formally documented, making it difficult to assess the patterns of approval. Ensuring that records are available to both assessing doctors would add an extra layer of scrutiny and help to prevent doctor shopping.

However, while the amendment is a step in the right direction, it does not require an independent review of the records. Sir James Munby, the former president of the family division of the High Court, has criticised the lack of procedural rigour in oversight mechanisms, warning that assisted dying laws risk becoming a rubber-stamp exercise if refusals and approvals are not documented with transparency. The Royal College of General Practitioners has called for independent oversight of the entire process, not just a reliance on individual doctors. These amendments would partially address that, but would not fully resolve it.

Amendments 422 and 423 are welcome but otiose: they would simply give doctors permission to do what they should be doing anyway. If they are conscientious, they will do it anyway, and if not, they will not. It is slightly like an illegal gun amnesty: the good guys will not have illegal firearms in the first place, and the bad guys with guns are not going to hand them in voluntarily. I fear that we are requiring good behaviour of good people, and not requiring it of doctors who are not doing their job properly.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-second sitting)

Kim Leadbeater Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 12th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

I rise to speak to new clauses 17 and 21 and to the four associated amendments. There is a lot to say, so please bear with me, but I will do my best not to repeat myself.

How exactly will the panel operate and function? I appreciate some of the explanations provided by the hon. Member for Spen Valley, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister on the point, but I have concerns about exactly what the panel will do and how it will do it. I will do my best not to repeat what others have said, but I reiterate the concerns as to whether it is indeed a better safeguard than the High Court one that was originally envisaged, given that it will have no full judicial role.

On a practical level, I question whether it is even feasible to find sufficient numbers of psychiatrists and social workers who are able and willing to perform this very burdensome role. As we all know, social workers do an incredibly important job, but people with their skillset are in extremely high demand. The hon. Member has made it clear that she is removing the High Court safeguards not because of the capacity concerns raised in oral evidence in January, but because she believes that this is truly a better and safer model.

I am also concerned that something that was originally meant to bring judicial oversight into the process has been replaced with something that is not judicial. I welcome more involvement from psychiatrists and social workers, who have a key role to play in the process, but I have concerns about whether the panel is the right place for it. Its expertise would be more valuable earlier in the process, when the co-ordinating doctor and the independent doctor are performing their assessments, rather than at the stage with the legal oversight component. A panel’s involvement in a truly multidisciplinary approach during the clinical stage of the assessment process would have been a gold-standard safeguard, but unfortunately that approach was not put on the face of the Bill.

How the panel will operate is an issue of great significance. If we do not flesh out the detail now, when will we? We must have this conversation. I have looked for this information in the new provisions. According to new schedule 2,

“The Commissioner may give guidance about the practice and procedure of panels.”

That is all there is. I cannot see any further information. Disappointingly, it is not even that the commissioner “must” give guidance—it “may”—so the operation of panels may change depending on who is in the role of commissioner. Given that this is a new approach and process, I urge the promoter and the Government to ensure that it is adequately fleshed out to avoid ambiguity.

When I imagine the panel, I am not sure what I am supposed to be imagining. Is it an administrative process—three people checking the papers—or is it more like a court, calling in evidence? Yesterday, the hon. Member for Banbury eloquently set out the practical realities of the new provisions with regard to witnesses. According to new clause 21, the panel “must hear from” at least one of the doctors, but it does not need to question him or her, so what is it exactly that the panel is required to hear? What does “hear” mean, and does it cover anything specific? Does it cover all the items in new clause 21(2), or just some? The new clause does not specify.

It is the same for the patient. The panel just needs to “hear” from him or her; it does not need to question them. As I will come to shortly, in exceptional cases, even the patient will not need to be heard from. Again, I would be grateful to the Justice Minister for clarity on what “hear” means and what she would expect would be covered.

We do know that the panel must be “satisfied” of the relevant matters, yet how it is to be satisfied, and even what that means, is not clear. The only person who must be heard from is either the co-ordinating doctor or the independent doctor—just one person. That may be fine, or it may not, but I put it on the record here, because it is important that we are clear-eyed about it.

Compare the process with an employment tribunal. Someone litigating an employment claim would know well in advance the rules that the tribunal would apply, what test the tribunal would apply to the facts, the legal representation they can have, and how and on what basis they can appeal. That kind of clarity is essential, but I cannot find it in the new clause. I also do not know whether the panel is inquisitorial or adversarial.

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

I am very happy to clarify that the panel is not adversarial, but inquisitorial and investigative.

[Rebecca Paul]

I thank the hon. Member for that confirmation. Now that I have that clarity, I will skip on.

One aspect of the panel that gives me cause for concern is that the panel would not hear from the patient themselves where there are “exceptional circumstances”. What are exceptional circumstances? The Bill does not say or provide any guidance. Many people with a terminal diagnosis who are seeking assisted dying could consider their circumstances exceptional; many undoubtedly will be too unwell to attend. That means that such panels could be making these decisions based on testimony from only one doctor. I am not for one second suggesting that people on their deathbeds should have to attend a panel—that is the point of exceptional circumstances—but I urge the promoter and Ministers to ensure that the much-need clarity around the meaning of the term is set out in order to reduce ambiguity in this area.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Paul]

Again, I am not sure I agree that that is what I am here to do today. I think my job is to set out the strengths and weaknesses of the proposed amendment, and I do think that the High Court judge safeguard, on the face of it, was probably safer. I appreciate, value and truly welcome what the new clause attempts to do by bringing in psychiatrists and social workers, but it has come in at the wrong phase of the process. I am not sure we are really getting the value of that expertise at the judicial point; we would have got that value at the clinical stage.

I ask Members to take what I am saying in the good faith that it is meant. My intention is to make sure that the Bill is as safe as possible. I do not profess to have all the answers, but I do have questions, and sometimes it is useful to ask questions, because there are others here who can answer them. I hope that, by asking questions when we are uncertain whether something is the right way forward, we will get a stronger piece of legislation.

[Kim Leadbeater]

The hon. Member is absolutely right that we are here to ask questions, and I appreciate those questions being asked. On what happens earlier in the process, I hope she is reassured by the fact that we will now have compulsory referral to a psychiatrist if there is a doubt about capacity, and we have specified in the Bill doctors consulting other health and social care professionals, to provide for a holistic approach earlier in the process.

[Rebecca Paul]

I absolutely welcome those amendments. I do think they improve the safety of the Bill. As I have mentioned, I would have liked to see a truly multidisciplinary approach. At the moment, we have just included something in the Bill, as the hon. Lady says, stating that a doctor can refer to another specialist if they so wish. I would have liked to see that team pulled together, and that recognised in the Bill—we heard strong oral evidence about that.

[Kim Leadbeater]

The other point I would reiterate is that none of that stops happening. We have heard from professionals and experts that that happens. Someone who has cancer will have a multidisciplinary team around them as part of their natural treatment process. Nothing in the Bill stops that happening.

[Rebecca Paul]

I take that point. In an ideal world where our public services were not under pressure, I might be more reassured, but I am a local councillor, and I am well aware how difficult it is to get social workers involved in all the things that they need to be involved in, because they are spread so thin. The hon. Lady lays out very well how things should work, but when I take off my rose-tinted glasses, I am concerned that they will not work like that in the real world. That is why I always go back to putting things in the Bill, because that forces them to happen—doing so here would force that treatment to happen.

The Committee will be pleased to hear that I now turn to my amendments—but I am afraid there are four of them, so bear with me. Amendment (a) to new clause 17 may be one of the most important amendments that I will speak about. This is something that I feel very passionately about. One of the most important questions we should ask is how the panel might deal with a family member with concerns, for example, that a relative was being coerced. Would the family member be afforded the status of a party to proceedings? Would they have a right to see the relevant documents before the panel? Would they have a right to be informed that a panel was taking place? If they are not a party to proceedings, is their status that of a witness? If they are a witness, do they have the right to observe proceedings when a panel sits in private? Do they have a right to be heard by the panel? Again, I am asking questions. I am not necessarily saying one way or the other what the answer should be, but those are questions I have.

None of this is laid out in the new clauses that we are considering. In fact, I suggest that in the struggle to balance autonomy with the rights of impacted others in the Bill, autonomy is very much winning the fight. I was struck yesterday by various Members setting out their fears that the first a family could know about an assisted death is when they are called upon to make arrangements for the burial. That would be an awful situation, and I strongly believe that families and loved ones should not be cut out of the process without good reason, especially when, no doubt, they will be required to bury the person and pay for it, as I assume the state will not take on that responsibility. I suggest that this point on funeral arrangements and expenses needs further thought as the Bill progresses.

From reading the Bill, all we know is that the panel may

“hear from and question any other person”.

There is no mechanism for family members to have a right to be heard or even to submit information. That needs to be rectified. The panel could reach its conclusions without hearing at all from the family. That is unacceptable. If someone’s mother, father, son or daughter were going in front of an assisted dying panel, that person would at least want to know and be clear about their rights and available options to feed into the process.

We then come to the big issue. What if a mistake is made and a relevant piece of information is not provided to the panel by the people it hears from? My amendment (a) to new clause 17 seeks to help the panel to avoid making the wrong decision, and give time for it to be remedied before the patient is dead.

--- Later in debate ---

To be clear, I am not saying that that is a situation in which an appeal might have been upheld. What Professor Kissane’s story demonstrates is that families can see things very clearly, in a way that professionals, even with training, cannot. Families know the person well, they understand their relationships and they know the subtleties of the situation.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Is the hon. Lady reassured by the fact that, under the Bill, coercion becomes a criminal offence with a serious prison sentence? If any family members are in any doubt as to whether coercion is taking place, it is straightforward: they go to the police.

[Rebecca Paul]

I welcome the hon. Lady’s intervention, but the point I am making is not about coercion; it is about the subtleties in families’ relationships. I was trying to bring to life a situation—sometimes it is families who understand the relationships, the dynamics and the pressure points. It is very hard for professionals to get underneath that.

In a sense, families are the greatest experts, but the process as drafted excludes that expertise. Under my amendment, if a family member had knowledge that could make the difference between life and death, they would be able to apply to the panel. If there had been a clear error in applying the eligibility criteria, the application would be reconsidered. It is true that the panel will be informed by at least one of the doctors and that it has the option of hearing from others. Perhaps the panel will always be incredibly thorough and explore every avenue, but we have to legislate for every situation, including situations that are not ideal.

We can learn a lot from other jurisdictions. In written evidence, the academic Christopher Lyon from the University of York describes his experience in Canada. Dr Lyon writes that his father, who was “openly suicidal” and had a “history of mental illness”, qualified for medical assistance in dying in 2021. In Dr Lyon’s words:

“He was classed as having a ‘foreseeable natural death’ (i.e., terminal illness), my family was told, because he had momentarily skipped some meals at his residence and had an elevated but unremarkable white blood cell (WBC) count that the AD doctor suggested might be an infection that, if untreated, might become lethal, despite being a common side effect of his arthritis medication.”

Dr Lyon says that when he was informed two days before the event, he pushed for an urgent psychiatric assessment to be carried out. Dr Lyon has obtained a copy and says that it is

“full of errors. It claims he wasn’t suicidal, when he had a whole history of suicidality. It states he didn’t think he was depressed, and yet on the list of medications there was listed antidepressants.”

Dr Lyon’s concerns about his father’s prognosis, the assessment and other aspects of the events were widely shared, he says:

“After he died, the provincial regulatory college, police, and even other AD clinicians suggested his death was questionable or even wholly unlawful. However, privacy law and the continuing resistance from the local health authority have so far succeeded in blocking access to his medical records necessary for a full investigation”.

In Ontario, meanwhile, the chief coroner has published a report detailing the assisted death of an anonymous patient, Mr A, who had inflammatory bowel disease. He was unemployed, dependent on his family for housing and financial support, and struggled with alcohol and opioid misuse. He received an assisted death on the basis that his illness was advanced, irreversible and causing intolerable suffering. According to the coroner, the family were not consulted by those involved with processing the application, even though it was recorded that the family expressed concerns. Most members of the death review committee thought that shutting the family out was a mistake. The committee concluded:

“Engagement with family and/or close relations in the MAiD process should aim to be a key component of MAiD practice.”

We can hope that these were exceptional events, but they are the kinds of situation in which a panel might have benefited from a family perspective, which is the reason why I cite them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Paul]

I completely agree. While I was preparing my speech, as is often the way, I found myself wishing that I had tabled an amendment to add a legal requirement that the family be able to feed into the panel and share information. Perhaps that is something that can be picked up at a later stage. The nature of the process is that as we debate these things and think about them in detail, other ideas come through.

[Kim Leadbeater]

The hon. Lady mentioned a few moments ago that the family would make such an appeal only if there was new information, but her amendment does not say that, and it has no explanatory statement. Could she clarify what she meant?

[Rebecca Paul]

That comes under subsection (2) of my amendment:

“The Commissioner will allow the application for reconsideration if the Panel’s decision was—

(a) wrong, or

(b) unjust”.

It is implied that the decision is wrong because there is missing information. Missing information is one example; other things would enable an appeal, but the obvious and most likely reason in this instance would be that a certain bit of information had not been shared.

I am not saying that the amendment is perfect in any way. It is set out clearly in guidance on the private Member’s Bill process that amendments will not necessarily be drafted perfectly and that it is incumbent on the Government to take the spirit of what is intended and get the clause to an appropriate place to deliver that. I am happy to work with the Government to ensure that the wording works and is clear. I think the hon. Lady’s point may be that it is unclear; I am happy to work in any way to improve that clarity.

--- Later in debate ---

This Bill is really different from the legislation used in Canada, because Canada requires an applicant to be facing unbearable suffering that cannot be relieved. The Bill before us requires a terminal diagnosis, so it does not open up the question of other kinds of suffering and whether they can be relieved. However, it will certainly confront the panel with the same kind of dilemma: what should be done when an applicant wants an assisted death, not because of illness, but because of personal vulnerability or social issues—housing problems, for instance? The panel will know that, if that person’s housing problems or some other crisis were to be resolved, the desire for an assisted death might diminish or even evaporate. It will nevertheless have to decide whether to issue a certificate confirming eligibility for assisted death.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I might have misheard, but I believe the hon. Member asked what happens when a patient asks for assisted death not as a result of illness. If that was the case, then they would not fall under the criteria of the Bill.

[Rebecca Paul]

I am making a point regarding if a person fitted the diagnosis in that they are terminally unwell, but it is actually the fact that they have got nowhere to live that is really driving the decision rather than the terminal illness. My apologies if that was not clear.

In Oregon there was the case of Barbara Wagner, who had recurring lung cancer. She had been prescribed a drug, Tarceva, which had an excellent record. It increased patients’ one-year survival rate by 45%. Oregon’s state Medicaid provider sent Wagner a letter saying that her insurance plan would not cover the drug, but would cover other options, including assisted dying. Wagner said:

“I got a letter in the mail that basically said if you want to take the pills, we will help you get that from the doctor and we will stand there and watch you die. But we won’t give you the medication to live.”

Those are her own words, not my words. Recently in Australia, similar cases have been reported of people choosing assisted dying because they were put on too long a waiting list for a home care package. One man said of his mother:

“Her pride wouldn’t allow any of her boys to take care of her or to bathe her so she got approved for the assisted dying”,

and a few months ago proceeded with it.

There are many other situations where everyone would benefit from the panel having broader discretion. Think of one of the cases I talked about earlier—and have done throughout the various Committee sessions—where somebody appears to be a possible victim of coercion, or a case where someone with diabetes, for instance, wishes to bring themselves within the six-month definition by stopping treatment, or someone with anorexia brings themselves within the definition by stopping eating and drinking. The capacity safeguard would not defend them. The courts have found that people have capacity to refuse lifesaving treatment, even if their decision is strongly influenced by other factors.

Hon. Members may worry that giving the panel discretion is too open-ended. The truth is that, in our legal system, discretion is the norm. Whether in sentencing guidelines or in custody cases, the law nearly always recognises that sometimes a general rule has to be departed from. If the panel is compelled to make its decisions only by a checklist with no other option, the Bill is saying that the panel is less trustworthy than the courts. If this panel is to be a safeguard, we should be clear about how it functions. It needs to be open to correcting mistakes. It needs to have a clear standard of proof, which will protect people and not just hastily steer them towards assisted death, and it needs a wide degree of discretion if it is truly to be more than a tick-box exercise. I hope the Committee will agree and support these amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Francis]

I thank my hon. Friend for that statistic, which I was not aware of. It relates back to concerns that I have had through the process, particularly on learning disabilities and how a family member finds out during the process what processes would be open to them. In my opinion, it is unclear how the proposed panel fits into our legal system. Again, there are all kinds of quasi-judicial panels that do fit into our legal system, and they have an appeal process, of course. They would normally see two parties in a case. I hear what has been said this morning about Spain. It was put to us in oral evidence from a supporter of the Bill that we should look at that part of the Spanish model about having both sides of the process, although I accept that Spain has a very different legal system from the United Kingdom.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I am interested in exploring the characterisation of the two sides referred to, because this is not about two sides. This is about an individual patient with a terminal illness. I am just interested in how we can explore that a little further.

[Daniel Francis]

I hear that. As my hon. Friend knows, yesterday when there was an amendment on individual autonomy, I voted the same way that she did. But I will put the scenarios that I put in that debate yesterday when I came to my decision. The scenario that I have always considered is: what if the person with a learning disability in their 40s or 50s says, “I want to make the decision to relieve the burden on my parent in their 70s or 80s”, and the parent in their 70s or 80s is not involved in the process, but finds out about the process and there is no way they can intervene in the process? I hear what was said about JR, but there is no way, as is laid out in the Bill, that they can then intervene in the process and say, “There has been a mental capacity assessment, but we think that, given there is a borderline level of capacity, there may have been a position where a doctor has had to, under the Act, assist that decision to be made.” What would be the legal process for the parents in that case? These are the scenarios. As Members know, I am not somebody who opposes the principles of the legislation, but these are the scenarios that have brought me to this place.

[Kim Leadbeater]

The quick answer is that there would be an injunction. I hope my hon. Friend will also be reassured that the panel is coming towards the end of this very long process. In the situation he describes, the patient would have gone through all the other stages with the doctor. I imagine in that situation, in a psychiatric referral, the doctor would have said, “Would you consider speaking to your next of kin?” There are a lot of other stages prior to getting to this point, which I hope provides some reassurance.

[Daniel Francis]

I hear that. As my hon. Friend knows, I supported amendment 6, as she did, and other amendments that strengthen the Bill in that way. I accept the right to autonomy. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough gave the example of an appeal in Spain, but I do not think the fact that a religious group was funding the appeal in one case is an excuse for taking that right away, because there will be other people in Spain who have genuine concerns and want to go through the appeal process.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-third sitting)

Kim Leadbeater Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 12th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)]

On Second Reading on 29 November, the hon. Member for Spen Valley said:

“Under the Bill, any terminally ill person who wants to be considered for an assisted death would have to undertake a thorough and robust process involving two doctors and a High Court judge. No other jurisdiction in the world has those layers of safeguarding.”—[Official Report, 29 November 2024; Vol. 757, c. 1019.]

There can be no doubt that the High Court judge safeguard was presented to the House as globally exceptional, unusually thorough and robust, as compared to other jurisdictions. It was also a prominent feature of the public campaign around the Bill. We were told it was a Bill designed for exceptional circumstances, with robust safeguards—the High Court judge being the pre-eminent one. It was not a trivial detail; it was the centrepiece of a safeguarding regime arranged around a small number of vulnerable people. Over 60 Members of Parliament are on the record as saying that it was this safeguard that helped persuade them to vote in favour on Second Reading.

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

I will stand corrected if this is not true, but my understanding is that Hansard will show a very different story. I do not think that 60 people got up and said on record that this element was why they were voting for the Bill.

[Danny Kruger]

To be clear, I was not suggesting that they all said so on Second Reading, because not everybody spoke in that debate—nor am I saying that it is only because of this safeguard that MPs voted for the Bill, but there are 60 colleagues of ours who have cited the judicial safeguard as a reason for supporting the Bill. Indeed, I hope the Committee will agree that this was always presented as a very significant aspect of the safeguarding regime, if not the most significant aspect. I suggest it was the most significant, because it enabled people to argue that this was the strongest Bill in the world, given that other regimes do not have a judicial element.

I opposed the Bill on Second Reading and I expect that I will oppose it on Third Reading, but I respect the Committee process enough to accept that the House wanted the Bill debated. Because I respect the process, I have not opposed clauses that concern the heart of the Bill, but we are now going to see the hon. Member for Spen Valley, Government Ministers and their supporters vote against this clause—the essential safeguard in the Bill, and the principal element used to persuade the House that the Bill was safe—standing part of the Bill. It is an extraordinary thing that we are going to see the Bill’s promoter and the Government oppose the centrepiece of this Bill.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I understand the hon. Member’s framing of this and it might very well be his perspective, but there were 650 MPs who voted on Second Reading that day, so I think it is unfair to represent colleagues who did not have the view that this is the central component of the Bill. There are lots of other components to the Bill that colleagues have certainly spoken to me about, and it is important to acknowledge that.

[Danny Kruger]

I am happy to acknowledge that there are many other components of the Bill, but many Members, including the hon. Lady, cited this safeguard as an essential element of the safeguarding regime—if not the most essential. Crucially, it was presented to the House of Commons as such, and it is a central clause of the Bill, and the hon. Lady is now proposing to vote against that element. My view is that a change this substantial—a fundamental and radical change to the structure of the process that is being designed—should be presented on Report. The whole House should have the opportunity to discuss and debate properly whether that element should be changed. Every Member should have the opportunity to have a say on this central point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

Of course that is correct: a small number of amendments will be selected for debate and vote on Report, and if somebody wants to table an amendment on this issue it might indeed make it through Mr Speaker’s selection, but the point of the Committee process is to consider the Bill that was passed on Second Reading and come back to the House with the Bill either unamended or amended. This is a very substantial change to the Bill that was presented and voted for on Second Reading. As I say, many Members supported this clause, no doubt including the hon. Gentleman.

[Kim Leadbeater]

The hon. Gentleman is making a point that we hopefully all agree with. The job of the Committee is to take evidence and look at ways of improving the Bill on that basis. This is a really good example of where we have actually done our job and done it very, very well.

[Danny Kruger]

I do not think the hon. Lady can say she has done her job very, very well if, after presenting a Bill, and after months and months of work and debate, including many hours’ debate on Second Reading, she suddenly decides that its central part is deficient. She talks about the opportunity for the Committee to take and debate evidence, but we have not had evidence on this new element—these new clauses and the panel process. There were vague suggestions from some of the people we heard evidence from that it might be appropriate, but although we heard evidence on the High Court stage and the deficiencies therein, we have not had the opportunity to properly examine the panel element that is now being introduced.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way one more time?

[Danny Kruger]

With great pleasure.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again; I will sit down after this. I will not take it too personally that he thinks I have done a very poor job, but the point is that we heard a broad range of evidence from professionals including legal experts, medical experts, psychiatrists and social workers—lots of different people. We have also had evidence come in over recent weeks and months that has added to that and has talked about these changes. It is important to acknowledge that.

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Lady must not apologise for intervening on me. I can hardly be one to object to people intervening. This is a very good forum for the kind of exchanges we are having, so I am very happy to take interventions. She is absolutely right that lots of evidence has been presented. I cite it myself all the time. Further evidence is coming in, and much of it is very critical of the new proposals. That is an absolutely fair point, but my point remains that we invited witnesses and had three days of evidence on a Bill whose core safeguard has now fundamentally changed—well, it has not changed yet, but I suspect it is about to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

Thank you, Ms McVey. I do not want to be facetious because it is a serious point, but lots of new points were made in evidence to the Committee, including some in favour of the Bill as it is and some of the amendments that I have opposed. We have had some helpful evidence that has helped to shore up the case made by the Bill’s promoter, as well as evidence that suggested otherwise, and some points in debate have been very well made. I was nearly floored by an intervention by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham yesterday, for instance. I do respect the points that have been made in Committee, including at the evidence stage.

My suggestion is that we should be doing this on Report, if we do it at all, because that would reflect the seriousness of the proposal and the fact that the House voted for the clause on Second Reading. There were problems with the High Court stage, as has been acknowledged, and others have referred to it in support of the change. I want to quickly acknowledge, perhaps in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire, the points made by Lord Sumption, Max Hill, Alex Ruck Keene and Nicholas Mostyn—all senior barristers and judges. It became obvious that there were significant issues, particularly around the power of the court to investigate applications or to hear evidence on them, and about the capacity of the judicial system to cope with the demand.

It was clear that further thought was needed on the High Court stage. Indeed it was apparent that further thought was already under way. There is an interesting exchange in the record of the evidence sessions between the Justice Minister, the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green, and those witnesses, particularly Max Hill, who said that he was quite close to the construction of the Bill. That clearly shows, in my view, that there already was thinking under way behind the scenes that have led to these changes.

My view is that, rather than ditching clause 12, we should be seeking to make it work in ways that many hon. Members have proposed. I am afraid we just skipped over those proposals in earlier groupings on the clause because there was no point—we were obviously proceeding to the stand part debate and to eliminate the involvement of the court all together.

There were things the Committee could have set itself to address, but we have not done that. I hope you will excuse me, Ms McVey, for making what might be a cynical observation: I think the High Court stage was recognised as popular and as useful to the campaign to get the Bill through the House of Commons. It was predicated specifically on the point, which was clearly communicated and understood by the public, that this measure of assisted dying is intended for very few people. It is for the most exceptional cases: people at the very end of their life, in desperate circumstances, in desperate pain and suffering. Very few people need it. However, I believe this change is predicated on the real intent of the Bill: far wider eligibility than just that tiny group.

We have seen that through the rejection of a series of amendments that would have restricted eligibility specifically to that group—a group for whom we all understand the case for an assisted death; again, the public support it in those specific cases of people at the very end of their life, who are suffering intolerably. The Bill is not restricted to that group only, and that is why we need to redesign the system to enable this larger group to make use of it.

[Kim Leadbeater]

The hon. Gentleman is been very generous with his time. I am interested in how he can conclude that the eligibility criteria have somehow been expanded by adding an expert panel with a psychiatrist and a social worker.

[Danny Kruger]

I am sorry; I did not intend to give that impression. That is not what I am suggesting. What I am saying is that we have seen the rejection of a series of amendments that would have restricted eligibility, or ensured that only certain people would be eligible: those for whom we all understand the reason for the case for assisted death. Whether our amendments related to the burden, the pain, or questions around capacity and coercion, our amendments would have restricted access to only the most desperate people.

On that basis, it would have been appropriate to have a High Court stage, because the High Court could have accommodated that lower demand. Given the opportunity that the Bill affords to a larger group of people to gain access to assisted death, it has become obvious—I presume, in the mind of Government and others—that there is insufficient capacity in the court system to accommodate the regime being instituted here.

I think the question of High Court capacity has been driven by the desire for a system that can cope with many thousands of deaths per year. I have seen ranges suggesting between 6,000 and 17,000 deaths per year. If Members have other calculations or estimates, I would be grateful to hear them. In fact, it would be good to know whether the Government have done any estimation of the numbers we are looking at.

It is not simply a case of averting those desperate cases of people who help their relatives to die by going to Switzerland or who assist them in committing suicide in other ways—we heard from Max Hill that only a handful of cases cross his desk every year. It is clearly the intention to greatly widen the scope beyond that desperate group. It is unclear what the overall number is, but my strong sense is that we are looking at many thousands, and for that reason, it has been decided that the High Court would not have the capacity to cope with this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making that absolutely central point. This is a judicial process, and a decision is being made. I recognise that the hon. Member for Spen Valley has correctly abandoned the claim that this is a judge-led process—because it is not—but the function of this panel will be essentially judicial, not least because the decision to proceed with an assisted death entails the people involved in administering it being exempt from criminal law and not being liable to prosecution under the Suicide Act 1961. We have made an exemption for what is otherwise a crime, and if they do not get the go-ahead from this panel, they will be committing a crime if they proceed. So in all essence, a judicial decision is being made, and it is right that we have the protections of a court.

Let me make a couple of brief points about the practicalities, and they have partly been made by others. The central point is that we do not know whether the professionals who will be required to take part in this panel have the capacity to do so. We know that the judges do not have the capacity under the current design of the law, which is an essential flaw—or we think they do not, because that point has been comprehensively argued by the judiciary and I suspect by officials at the Ministry of Justice. What we do not know is whether the psychiatry and social work professions have adequate capacity. There has been no impact assessment, and we have had a lot of comments from representative bodies expressing anxiety about the capacity of these professions to supply the panels.

The point I am trying to make is that we cannot, and should not, legislate in the dark. We should not draft laws in ignorance of these basic facts. We need to know whether the law before us is workable in the real world, and I would be grateful for clarification on that from Ministers when they speak to this clause. In my view, we need robust and clear data on how many professionals might take up the posts, and more importantly, we need the clearest and earliest warning of where there might be deficits that would compromise the entire system, particularly around the capacity of psychiatrists. We have a central problem with ignorance around capacity, but my strong view is that we do have a problem with capacity.

An important point was made by Alex Ruck Keene in evidence around the judge-led process, which we discussed earlier. His point was that it would not be possible for the judge to decline an assisted death on the basis of what he calls service denial—that is, there is not enough social care treatment or medical treatment available for the patient. If the reason why the patient were to receive an assisted death was that the local authority would not provide them with improvements to their home or funding, or that they could not get the medical treatment they wanted early enough, that would be a legitimate reason, or would not be a reason not to proceed with an assisted death. That is a very grave concern to us, and it is what happens in other countries. We heard this morning about evidence that when a patient is denied the medical or social care that they need to carry on living and living well, they are offered an assisted death. In those circumstances, I would really hope that the decision maker would conclude that it is wrong that we offer an assisted death, and that we in fact need to insist that they get the support they need to live well. I reference that because, as I understand it, there is no opportunity in the new clauses for the panel to decline an assisted death on grounds that it is being sought only because of the inadequacy of the wider care system.

It has been suggested that the judicial option remains, through the judicial review system. Other hon. Members have responded to that point, so I will not labour it. However, I want to make the point that new clause 17 makes judicial review less likely because it offers the opportunity for a sort of appeal. It is an appeal only in one direction—against a refusal—but there is a sort of appeal process in the system. As my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate said, if there is a JR, it is likely to take a long time. There is nothing about whether legal aid will be arranged. The state has proposed to pay for people to go through the assisted dying process, but is not prepared to pay anybody to challenge it, so they would have to raise their own money. It would also take a long time. It would be much simpler and better, whether it is a panel or a judge, to set up the system in a way that allows both sides to be told and that does not rely on a cumbersome judicial review system.

I reiterate that I support the multidisciplinary team. It is a very good thing that the hon. Member for Spen Valley has decided to introduce a proper stage at which a psychiatrist and a social worker will have to consider the application properly. I have concerns about how it would actually work, which I will come on to, but having a multidisciplinary team is in principle the right system. I stress that the professionals who made the case for multidisciplinary teams as part of the assessment process have not endorsed the new clauses. They are not saying that we have adequately met their concerns about the process.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I am not entirely sure who the hon. Gentleman is referring to, but it is fair to say that there is a range of views across a range of professions. It is important to acknowledge that.

[Danny Kruger]

I apologise; the hon. Lady is absolutely right. No doubt there are representative bodies, whether it is patients’ groups or bodies representing professionals, that are satisfied with the new proposal. I do not know which—genuinely, I just have not come across them—but I have no doubt that there are some.

[Kim Leadbeater]

To clarify, the point that I am making is that there is a range of views across a range of organisations—many of which are neutral on the issue of assisted dying, full stop—and a range of views within each profession. We heard evidence from people working in palliative care with different views, and from medical people with different views. It is important to acknowledge that.

[Danny Kruger]

Yes, a number are neutral. I will be grateful if the hon. Lady can tell the Committee if there are any representative bodies working with the professionals who administer end-of-life care that have endorsed either the Bill as it was or the Bill as it is. I do not believe there are.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I will check.

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Lady is going to check. My understanding is that all the bodies that represent palliative care professionals and end-of-life specialists are opposed to the Bill as it was and as it is. I think there are straightforward reasons for that.

Everybody agrees that there is value in the multidisciplinary team approach. The British Association of Social Workers provided evidence setting out what it thought was needed, namely an MDT working at the assessment stage. This is not that. It is very important that we do not confuse the provisions made under the new clauses with a multidisciplinary team operating at the appropriate moment in the process. We have to have public confidence in the process. It is very important that the composition of the new proposed panels is not conflated with the separate matter of a multidisciplinary team model. It would be very unfortunate if that confusion obtained.

The Bill, as drafted, rejects the involvement of a multi-professional team model for the conduct of the assessments, preferring two doctors working alone without input from a multidisciplinary team. I recognise that there are opportunities for them to hear from other professionals, but it is not a multidisciplinary team in any recognisable sense of the term.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

[Danny Kruger]

I will in a moment. I was going to finish by saying that it is not correct or accurate to give the impression that Dr Cox or the Association for Palliative Medicine supports the proposed approach.

[Kim Leadbeater]

It is really important to be clear about this. I do not think anyone is suggesting that what is in the Bill will replace existing good practice. That is really important. We probably all have family and friends who are being treated for cancer now, and they are looked after and cared for by a multidisciplinary team. That team does not suddenly disappear, to be replaced by what is in the Bill; it can continue. The assisted dying option involves the two doctors, and I struggle to envisage any situation in which they would not work with the multidisciplinary team and add on, where appropriate and necessary, psychiatric intervention, social care and healthcare professionals. I always come back to the point that I do not think the two things will operate independently.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

I certainly do. That is exactly the scenario that I fear, and I fear it within the NHS too. Let us not imagine that every NHS doctor has all the time and the access to the wider specialisms that they would wish. Under the Bill in its current form, there will be a very strong incentive and a very strong personal instinct for compassionate doctors, who believe in the autonomy of patients and in respecting the patient’s wishes, to take at face value what they are told and not to seek the expertise that would happen automatically if there were a proper multidisciplinary team at that stage of the process.

My point is that we do need a multidisciplinary team, but what is in the Bill is not it. At best, it is half a multidisciplinary team. There is no doctor on it. There is a lawyer, pointlessly. There is a sort of quasi-MDT—a duo-disciplinary team—but it is in the wrong place, and it will not assess, which is the job it should do, but judge. It will not diagnose or advise in the way that a clinician should; it will simply decide whether the criteria have been met for an assisted death. That job was rightly given to judges in the Bill that the House of Commons voted for, but this Bill does not have the powers, the safeguards, the accountability or the independence of a tribunal, let alone that of a court.

As the hon. Member for Spen Valley candidly says, the panel is not a judicial entity in any sense. It is a weird creature, neither one thing nor the other: a quasi-multidisciplinary team, at the wrong stage in the process, for the wrong purpose. I have said that it is not a multidisciplinary team, but it is not really a judicial entity either, as the hon. Lady has mentioned. It is certainly not “judge-plus”, as was originally suggested. There is no judge, just a legal member—not a judicial member but a legal member, who might be a lawyer.

[Kim Leadbeater]

There is a judge—it may be a retired judge—who is the commissioner, who heads up the entire assisted dying commission, and there is a legal expert on the panel as well, as the hon. Gentleman said. That could be a retired judge, so there is legal expertise there. I think the hon. Gentleman also made the point that there is not a doctor on the panel. My understanding is that psychiatrists are doctors, but I will stand corrected if that is not true.

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right; I do apologise. There is indeed a doctor—a psychiatrist—but not a doctor specialising in their condition.

[Kim Leadbeater]

We have had two of them already.

[Danny Kruger]

No, we have had a couple of GPs. We have not had a doctor who is a specialist in their condition.

[Kim Leadbeater]

If needed.

[Danny Kruger]

If needed, there is the opportunity to refer to one. It is perfectly possible that the whole process of an assisted death could be done very well under the Bill—that is good news—but there is a very great risk that the process will not be done well, because there are huge gaps through which bad practice can creep. My specific concern about this stage is that we do not have the appropriate expertise on the panel.

On the hon. Lady’s point about there being a judge in the process, there is a distant judge who sits above a quango that appoints the panels. They take a view on a specific case only if there is an appeal against a refusal. They are not directly judging on the case, as the House of Commons was told would happen.

[Kim Leadbeater]

The reports for the case would go to the commissioner, so he or she would see the reports.

[Danny Kruger]

Yes, but he or she will consider a reconsideration only on the basis of an application to reconsider made by the applicant. There is only one opportunity for an appeal and it can happen in only one direction: against a refusal. I will come on to the role of the commissioner in a moment, but in the great majority of cases there will not be a judge involved in the decision. There might be a retired judge on the panel, but that is extremely unlikely; it is more likely to be a lawyer. It is a judicial exercise that is being conducted, so it would be appropriate for it to be a judge sitting properly in a court.

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Having said that the panel is not a proper multidisciplinary team, I agree that it is not a proper judicial entity either. It is a panel with judicial power to approve life-or-death decisions, but it is without a judge or the normal judicial processes that would happen in a tribunal or court. There is no oath being taken by members of the panel or by witnesses; there is no independent appointment process, so the members of the panel will be appointed by the commissioner; there is no power to order the disclosure of information to the panel; there is no power to investigate wills, financial records or anything like that; and there is no requirement to meet the doctors or even to discuss the case with the patient themselves, if the panel considers that appropriate.

There is also no appeal against an approval, just a one-way appeal against a refusal. That appeal goes not to an independent judge sitting in a court, but to a commissioner—an appointee of the Government, who has been set up to facilitate the whole system.

Let me turn to the role of the VAD commissioner, or the Vader as I think of it; I will not labour the point. They can be a sitting judge, which is good, but I suggest to the Committee that it is highly unusual for sitting judges to be appointed to other public functions that are unrelated to a judicial role. I would be interested in the Minister’s view on that. Judges can be appointed to a second judicial job, such as chairing the Sentencing Council, but I am not aware of many examples in which a sitting judge sits in a non-judicial function.

Having looked into it, I discovered that there are three exceptions to the rule. First, the Master of the Rolls holds a number of sinecures in relation to the keeping of the public archives and the payment of the national debt, so that is a non-judicial function that a judge carries. Secondly, the chair of the Law Commission is a sitting High Court or Court of Appeal judge. Thirdly, and exceptionally, with permission of the senior judiciary, sitting judges can be asked to conduct public inquiries. A singular public inquiry, which is time-limited and essentially judicial in its purpose of determining what happened, and which will of course operate in an adversarial way, hearing proper evidence from counsel, is the only exception. However, that is not comparable to the model being set out here, in which a sitting judge is being asked to chair a permanent quango—a Government body.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is exactly the point? This is a unique situation, and therefore we need a unique system. That is the perfect opportunity to use the skills that a judge or retired judge has.

[Danny Kruger]

Throughout this debate, the hon. Lady and others have frequently made the case that we should stick with the existing systems, such as the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the use of doctors to make decisions about healthcare. Now the opposite point is being made: that we have a unique system and we therefore need to tear up the current way of working. In this one case, I think we need to stick with the current way of working: in the British judiciary, the High Court of England is the appropriate body to make decisions about life and death. That is how it works in other major decisions of life and death. These are questions that go to court.

On the point about the VAD commissioner being a sitting judge, even when it comes to inquiries that judges conduct outside their role as sitting judges in court, my understanding is that the Executive do not pick whichever sitting judge they want for the role. Instead, they request that the Lady Chief Justice make a judge available, and the Lady Chief Justice will select the appointee. What is proposed here is that the Prime Minister should pick from the bench of judges his or her preferred candidate. That feels like the use of a judge simply to fulfil a role that, frankly, does not need to be carried out by a judge.

For clarity, I emphasise that I am very much in favour of judges deciding on cases, but I do not see why a judge should fulfil the role of chief quangocrat for the administration of the regime. When we look at the functions the commissioner will have, it is quite right that, under the previous version of the Bill, most of those functions were given to the chief medical officer, because most of the required functions have to do with the administration of the medical aspects of the Bill. The collection of data and the monitoring of the operation of the Act are best left to a medic with experience of our healthcare system, rather than to a judge. These are not judicial functions.

The only function carried out by the commissioner that would require one to be a judge, or that is in a sense judicial, is the review of panel decisions, because a judicial decision is being made. Under new clause 17(2), the test is limited to an error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness; those are the grounds for judicial review. If we did not have new clause 17, the ability for judicial review of panel decisions would remain. It could be argued that the new clause would actually limit judicial review by only allowing the person concerned to apply for reconsideration.

I understand that some courts in Canada, which has a comparable judicial and common law system to ours, have held that family members do not have standing to judicially review decisions to authorise medical assistance in dying. The suggestion has been made that families who are concerned that an error has been made in a decision to approve a death should be able to quickly get an injunction through a JR. I hope that that will be the case, if this law passes as proposed, but it certainly is not the experience elsewhere and I fear it might not be the experience here.

I am afraid that we have a dog’s breakfast of a system: all the problems of the High Court system that have been aired, but without any of the benefits. I will finish by quoting Sir James Munby. I know he has been cited regularly, but the hon. Member for Spen Valley said yesterday that, having listened to Sir James, she set herself the task of designing a system that would satisfy a former president of the family division. I am afraid to say that she has not succeeded in her task. I will quote a few points that Sir James made in response to the proposals in these new clauses. He stated:

“The process…is simply not apt to enable the panel to perform its function…The panel is given an extraordinary degree of discretion in relation to the process it is to adopt”.

He suggested that the panel is

“little more than a rubber stamp providing a veneer of judicial approbation”—

I do not think that rubber stamps provide veneers, but his point is well made and I respect it—

“and that is fundamentally unacceptable”.

Finally, he said:

“If the panel is to perform its function effectively and do more than just ‘check the paperwork’—if it is to be the real safeguard intended by its proponents—then its processes must be much more thorough than is currently proposed…All in all, in relation to the involvement of the panel in the process, the Bill still falls lamentably short of providing adequate safeguards.”

[Kim Leadbeater]

Many of us have quoted Sir James Munby, for whom I have a huge amount of respect, but there are a number of other views from ex-judges and very highly-regarded legal professionals that conflict with what Sir James says.

[Danny Kruger]

It would be very helpful if the hon. Lady could—not now; it need not be in the course of these deliberations—publish the evidence of that assertion. Which senior judicial figures have endorsed the new plan? It would be very helpful to hear from them.

We heard many criticisms of the previous regime. In my view, those objections prompted the change of heart that the new clauses derive from. From what I have seen, the weight of evidence indicates that we still have many of the problems that the High Court system had: a lack of effective powers and questions around capacity. We also have a whole new load of problems to do with the essential illegitimacy of a quasi-medical panel of people making an essentially judicial decision without the opportunity to hear in a meaningful way from all the different stakeholders who should be consulted.

[Danny Kruger]

I think the hon. Member for Spen Valley said yesterday that we had to grapple with this confusion, which is that there is a judge not sitting as a judge. It is slightly like a Minister not sitting as a Minister; the Bill has provided all sorts of interesting hybrid creations of people who inhabit split personalities and dual roles.

The hon. Member for Bradford West is, I think, right. From the evidence we have heard from the hon. Member for Spen Valley, although there will be a judge, which satisfies the cosmetic need to present this as some sort of continuation of the High Court stage that the House of Commons voted for, they will not sit as a judge. It is rather like having a hobby or a second job. I am not sure judges do that, but it is like chairing a football club on the side. Their status derives from their judicial role, but they are sitting as the commissioner in a lay capacity—I think I have that right.

[Kim Leadbeater]

We have already talked about this, and I think the hon. Gentleman mentioned it himself: there is a similar situation with public inquiries, on which a judge sits because of their skillset and who they are, but not necessarily in a traditional judicial capacity.

[Danny Kruger]

It will be interesting to hear from the Minister, who is more equipped than the rest of us to opine on this. My understanding is that a judge sitting as chair of a judicial inquiry might not be sitting in court, but they are there because they are a judge; their function, as the chair of the inquiry, is essentially judicial. That is the only comparison and it is essentially different, because the exercise of a public inquiry is time-limited and specific to a particular case, which is to determine the truth or otherwise of what happened in whatever situation it is being asked to inquire into.

Here, we are setting up a quango—an arm’s length body of Government—that will sit in perpetuity and oversee a bureaucracy of state. That is something that no judge does in our system and, in my view, would be completely inappropriate for a sitting judge to do, even if we could find a sitting judge prepared to fulfil that function, which I think might be challenging.

The other key difference is that a judge chairing a public inquiry is appointed by the Lady Chief Justice; they are essentially judicial in their appointment and work. The judiciary appoints one of its own to fulfil a judicial function as the chair of an inquiry. It is being proposed here that the Government—the Executive, not the judiciary—appoint the chair of the commission from the Bench of judges.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

I want to speak to amendment (c) to new schedule 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft. The amendment requires members of the panel to have undertaken training in respect of domestic abuse, including coercive control, and financial abuse. It extends the principle of amendments 20, 21, and 22, also tabled in the name of my hon. Friend, which require the medical practitioners involved in the assisted dying process to have undertaken similar training.

[Kim Leadbeater]

rose—

[Naz Shah]

I am happy to give way to my hon. Friend, the sponsor of the Bill. I am really pleased that she accepted the previous amendments. I do not know whether she will accept this one.

[Kim Leadbeater]

A strong argument has been made to me that the professionals on the panel would have the skills and training to fulfil their role, but it is important, particularly given the time we have spent discussing this issue, that they do have it, so I am happy to support that amendment.

[Naz Shah]

I appreciate that. None the less, I will speak briefly to the amendment as I still have concerns. The amendment provides an absolutely necessary safeguard and I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend has accepted it. I am pleased that it extends to panel members, but it does not meet the safeguarding needs when it comes to people of ethnic minority backgrounds, coercion, cultural competence and so on. People and organisations have raised concerns about that.

The truth is that the Bill is very gendered: the analysis by women’s organisation The Other Half has found that if the Bill passes, and trends follow those of Australia, 1.65% of all deaths in this country could take place via assisted dying. If so, as many as 1,400 domestic abuse victims could die each year through that process. It is vital that Members on both sides of the debate are conscious that we are opening up a new avenue for domestic abuse through the Bill. That is what the amendment speaks to. To save the Committee time, I will not go over the detail because it was covered during our discussions of the previous three amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Sackman]

We are discussing how to construe the provision in paragraph 5 of new schedule 2. I should reiterate that, obviously, it is the promoter’s intent to have—hon. Members may call it what they will—the safeguard of unanimity behind that provision. If there is any feeling that the drafting does not fully reflect that intent, it can be tightened up. However, under of the Bill, there is clearly an intent to have unanimity in respect of the final decision about certification.

[Kim Leadbeater]

It absolutely is the policy intent that there should be a unanimous decision of the panel. If there is any lack of clarity, I am very happy to look into working with official draftspeople to tighten that up.

[Sarah Sackman]

I thank hon. Members for their interventions.

In respect of the standard that would be applied in order for the panel to be satisfied, in practice, as I was saying, the panel would establish a case on the balance of probability in those circumstances only on the basis of strong evidence. In other words, the more serious the issue to be determined, the closer the scrutiny and the stronger the evidence required.

Introducing a requirement for the panel to be satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt at this stage would create a difference to, or a divergence from, the standard applied by professionals earlier in the process, such as by the doctors in the first and second assessments, and—I think the hon. Member for Reigate acknowledged this in her speech—to ascertain whether, among other things, the person has capacity to make the decision to end their own life, whether they have a clear, settled and informed wish to do so, and that they have not been pressured or coerced. Such a requirement would create the problem of making the application of the Bill incoherent because, of course, if a civil standard has been applied earlier in the process, the higher, criminal bar could never be satisfied at the panel stage. The principal decision is what standard should be applied and, as I have said, the civil standard is used in other end-of-life decisions, but there is also a question of the internal coherence of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Sackman]

The hon. Gentleman’s first point is a matter for the impact assessment itself. Clearly both Departments have data on the state of the professions, on how many KCs there are in the country and on how many people will be needed to provide the service. As I say, if Parliament wishes it and legislates for it, the state will work to deliver it, but the detail will come in the impact assessment.

On the hon. Gentleman’s second question, as I made clear earlier, the effective shift away from the High Court model in clause 12 to the model in the new clauses has been driven by the policy intent of my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley. I will not get into the precise chronology of when the matter was raised, but it came from my hon. Friend.

Yesterday, I hotfooted it from the Committee to Justice questions, where I was delighted to see the hon. Member for Reigate. We discussed capacity issues in our Crown courts and civil courts. Those issues are well reported in the media, but there is no connection between them and the policy shift here. If this is what Parliament chooses to legislate, the state will work to deliver it.

[Kim Leadbeater]

It is important to acknowledge that it will be a number of years before this law will be implemented. Hopefully, the Government will continue the fantastic job that they are doing to improve capacity in our courts, so that even if capacity is an issue now, a few years down the line it will not be.

[Sarah Sackman]

I thank my hon. Friend for that encouragement. The Government’s position throughout the entire process, in so far as we have worked with her on these amendments and others to give effect to her intent, is to ensure that they are workable and operable. If this were not workable, we would not be here discussing it.

There are several examples across Government of judges or senior lawyers and KCs sitting on decision-making panels or in organisations or bodies that sit outside the framework of His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service. We have discussed some examples, such as public inquiries. I say this as the Minister for courts: it speaks to the trust and public confidence in both judges and KCs that when there is a public policy challenge to which many of us as politicians struggle to find a resolution, we so often turn to judge-led and KC-led inquiries to establish either what has happened or how systems can be improved. That is partly because of the impartiality and integrity that they bring to that work. I offer the example of the judicial commissioners who operate on behalf of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and who provide independent authorisation of application for the use of the most intrusive investigatory powers.

We have mentioned inquiries; I have also mentioned Parole Board panels as an example of inquisitorial rather than adversarial panels. They are often multidisciplinary, and many of their members are current or retired judges. They sit and hear issues of the most complex nature, assessing the risk that prisoners may present to the public on release.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Sackman]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. She has brought up that case a number of times in various debates on the Bill. In this context, part of the provision—in terms of the design and operation of the commissioner and the panels to which the various cases are referred—is the development of guidance. If the commissioner deems specific processes appropriate to the consideration of applications for assisted death where anorexia is an issue, that guidance can be developed. Again, that is a matter for the promoter of the Bill, but one might have thought that having a dedicated body in relation to assisted death—which also has the monitoring function that we will come to in clause 34—means the development of expertise in dealing with cases, in particular those especially difficult cases of the nature my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West raises. From a Government point of view, that would not necessarily flow—it is hard to see why it would at all—from the High Court, if we revert to that. That is a distinction between the two models that the Bill’s promoter has explored.

[Kim Leadbeater]

That is another important argument for having the panel. Where a terminally ill person with an eating disorder has been deemed to have capacity by two doctors and—I surmise, as we now have the compulsory referral—a psychiatrist, we will have on the panel another psychiatrist and a social worker. The panel does help to address concerns about capacity. Does the Minister agree?

[Sarah Sackman]

My hon. Friend has developed her thinking, and the Government have worked with her to reflect that policy intent. I think she is right that the panel is capable of doing just that and it could operate in that way.

Amendment (c) to new schedule 2 relates to the issue of domestic abuse training. It would make the voluntary assisted dying commissioner responsible for ensuring that all panel members had received training on domestic abuse, including coercive control and financial abuse. Persons appointed to the list of eligible panel members would already be qualified in the field of law, psychiatry or social work, and would have done all the training that pertains to receiving a professional qualification in those fields.

In addition, under new schedule 2 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, the commissioner would be able to give guidance to the panels, which could include training requirements, and the panels must have regard to that guidance in the exercise of their functions. That is all I propose to say about that. It might be seen as an example of something that would typically—I am not saying it has to—be left to regulation or the guidance, rather than being in primary legislation.

Amendment (d) to new schedule 2 relates to the panel sitting in private or in public. It seeks to ensure that panels sit in private by default.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-fourth sitting)

Kim Leadbeater Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 18th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Stephen Kinnock]

I happened to be at a hospice in Stafford yesterday on a ministerial visit and was extremely impressed by the work that the hospice staff were doing on family counselling, and advice and engagement both with the patient and family and loved ones, so the right hon. Gentleman is right that the hospice sector, among others, plays a vital role in that holistic engagement with patients throughout the process.

Amendment 374 requires that the co-ordinating doctor must notify the voluntary assisted dying commissioner where they witness a second declaration and where they make or refuse to make the supporting statement under clause 13(5), and that the commissioner must be provided with a copy of the second declaration and any statement. I hope that those observations were helpful to the Committee.

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you this morning, Ms McVey. My amendments 374 and 471 serve to clarify that the second declaration must be made before it is witnessed—it is a drafting amendment—and to bring clause 13 in line with the reporting requirements elsewhere in the Bill. For the functions of the commissioner to be carried out effectively, including supervising the assisted dying panels and making annual reports on the legislation’s operation, it is essential that all relevant details and reports are made available.

I am unable to support amendment 457, in the name of the hon. Member for Richmond Park. As I said when we started discussing the amendment, I do not fully understand why it has been positioned at this stage in the process. The shorter period of reflection is a recognition that a person’s death is expected within a month, so they literally have a few weeks left of life.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

That was the hon. Member’s response when I made my speech on the amendment in the previous sitting. I have reflected on that over the weekend. I still think that the issue of the voluntary stopping of eating and drinking is a very serious one that ought to be reflected somewhere in the legislation, but she is correct that, at this particular point, we are talking about the second period of reflection already being at an end, so it cannot be hastened in any way by such a measure. Therefore, I will be withdrawing the amendment.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I appreciate that; that is helpful and I thank the hon. Member. As the Minister said, a person whose death is approaching may have stopped eating and drinking for a number of reasons. They may simply be too ill. They may be unable to digest food. It may be that they have lost their appetite, or that they will be even more ill if they eat and drink, so it would seem particularly cruel to intervene on that basis at that point, but I appreciate her comments.

Amendment 316 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for York Central seeks to mandate the action a doctor must take if a patient is likely to die within one month. Like other amendments, it goes against the basic principles that underlie the Bill—that the wishes of the person seeking assistance should be respected. Surely that is even more important than ever as they face their final weeks. As the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire said, palliative care will have been discussed at length throughout the assisted dying process. It is also worth noting, as the hon. Member for East Wiltshire said, that evidence from other jurisdictions with similar laws—Australia and America—shows that between 80% and 90% of people who have gone through the assisted dying process are already receiving palliative care, so I am not minded to support the amendment.

[Sarah Olney]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: 207, in clause 13, page 9, line 20, leave out “Schedule 4” and insert

“regulations made by the Secretary of State”.

This amendment provides that the form of a second declaration is to be set out in regulations (rather than in Schedule 4).

Amendment 470, in clause 13, page 9, line 26, at end insert—

“(3A) Regulations under subsection (3)(a) must provide that a second declaration contains—

(a) the following information—

(i) the person’s full name and address;

(ii) the person’s NHS number;

(iii) contact details for the person’s GP practice;

(iv) specified information about the certificate of eligibility;

(b) the following further declarations by the person—

(i) a declaration that they have made a first declaration and have not cancelled it;

(ii) a declaration that they understand that they must make a second declaration in order for assistance to be provided under this Act;

(iii) a declaration that they are making the second declaration voluntarily and have not been coerced or pressured by any other person into making it;

(iv) a declaration that they understand that they may cancel the second declaration at any time.

In this subsection “specified” means specified in the regulations.”

This amendment provides that regulations about the form of a second declaration must make the provision mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b).

Amendment 471, in clause 13, page 9, line 27, leave out from “if” to “that” in line 28 and insert

“the coordinating doctor is satisfied (immediately before witnessing it)”.

This amendment removes wording which would suggest that a second declaration is made before it is witnessed.

Amendment 208, in clause 13, page 9, line 38, leave out “Schedule 5” and insert

“regulations made by the Secretary of State”.

This amendment provides that the form of a statement by the coordinating doctor following the making of the second declaration is to be set out in regulations (rather than in Schedule 5).

Amendment 472, in clause 13, page 9, line 41, at end insert—

“(6A) Regulations under subsection (6)(a) must provide that a statement under subsection (5) contains—

(a) the following information—

(i) the person’s full name and address;

(ii) the person’s NHS number;

(iii) the coordinating doctor’s full name and work address;

(iv) specified information about the certificate of eligibility;

(b) the following declarations by the coordinating doctor (in addition to a declaration that they are satisfied of all of the matters mentioned in subsection (4)(a) to (d))—

(i) a declaration that they are satisfied that a certificate of eligibility has been granted in respect of the person;

(ii) a declaration that the second declaration was made after the end of the second period for reflection;

(iii) if the second declaration was made before the end of the period mentioned in subsection (2)(a), a declaration that they have the belief mentioned in subsection (2)(b);

(iv) a declaration that they are satisfied that neither the first declaration nor the second declaration has been cancelled.

In this subsection “specified” means specified in the regulations.”

This amendment provides that regulations about the form of a statement under subsection (5) must make the provision mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b).

Amendment 374, in clause 13, page 10, line 2, at end insert—

“(8) Where the coordinating doctor has—

(a) witnessed a second declaration, or

(b) made or refused to make a statement under subsection (5),

the doctor must notify the Commissioner and give them a copy of the second declaration or (as the case may be) any statement under subsection (5).”—(Kim Leadbeater.)

This amendment requires the coordinating doctor to notify the Commissioner of witnessing a second declaration, and of having made or refused to make a statement under clause 13(5).

Clause 13, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14

Cancellation of declarations

[Kim Leadbeater]

I beg to move amendment 375, in clause 14, page 10, line 9, at end insert—

“(1A) Where notice or an indication is given to the coordinating doctor under subsection (1)(a), the doctor must as soon as practicable notify the Commissioner of the cancellation.”

This amendment requires the coordinating doctor to notify the Commissioner of a cancellation of a first or second declaration.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 376, in clause 14, page 10, line 12, after “doctor” insert “and the Commissioner”.

This amendment requires a practitioner other than the coordinating doctor to notify the Commissioner (as well as the coordinating doctor) of a cancellation of a first or second declaration.

Clause stand part.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I hope that these are a couple of nice, simple amendments. The right of the patient to cancel at any time is obviously really important. It is also important that, for the purpose of monitoring and reporting the process, the commissioner, as proposed, is kept informed at every stage. I hope that the whole Committee can see the necessity of these amendments.

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Lady is quite right that there is nothing to object to in these amendments or the clause. It is worth stating at this point, though, that in the context of the debate we are having in this Committee, we are moving at some pace. The likelihood is that there will be opportunity for only a five-hour debate on Report—maybe more, but possibly not. This Committee is the time we have to consider in detail the content of the Bill. My concern is that moving too quickly and trying to do too much too soon means that we will miss the opportunity to debate very important aspects of the Bill.

The hon. Lady says that these are “nice, simple” amendments, as if the only thing being discussed here is the paperwork around the declaration. What should we say to patients who decide to cancel their declaration? My concern—I am unaware of any other point when we could appropriately discuss this question—is what happens in the event of a cancellation. What duty of care do doctors have to patients who have decided not to proceed with an assisted death? The Bill does not currently address that question: it imposes no obligation on doctors to follow up in any way after a declaration has been cancelled.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

I am speaking to the group as a whole, which includes clause stand part. I have no objection to the amendments. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I said, the expectation is that the medical professionals involved in the person’s care will have laid out their options clearly. We are to a certain degree trusting in that because amendments to insist on it have been rejected, although I recognise that it will be the clear expectation. He is right that it is hard, as it were, to prove a negative.

Nevertheless, the purpose of my speech at this point is to tease out from the advocates of the Bill what their expectation is. My right hon. Friend has clearly explained his expectation, which is that we are dealing with somebody whose mind is clear, rational, uncluttered by other concerns and entirely free of any undue influences or anxieties about the different choices they might make. Having previously decided in the fullness of their autonomy that they wanted to go through the procedure, they have now decided in the fullness of their autonomy that they want to do the opposite, and we should say, “Fine. We have no further interest in your decision making. It is your choice—you’re on your own.” I am very concerned about the implication of my right hon. Friend’s comments about the sorts of patients who might be involved in the process of assisted dying.

[Kim Leadbeater]

To allay those fears, perhaps the fundamental answer to the question is that those people do not stop being patients—sadly, they do not stop being terminally ill patients. They have just chosen to cancel the declaration, and they will already have wraparound care. To some degree, the hon. Gentleman answered his own question when he said that doctors have a duty of care. That duty of care does not stop because the person has chosen to take this course of action. They will still be cared for by the professionals looking after them.

[Danny Kruger]

Well, we certainly hope so. Nevertheless, that is inconsistent with the doctrine of absolute patient autonomy, which in this circumstance allows a patient to withdraw from the medical treatment, or at least from the support of the medics who had been facilitating their assisted death. They are rightly under no obligation to receive any other sort of care.

Of course, one would assume that in most cases medics will be closely involved in looking after these patients, because they are likely to be very ill. Nevertheless, the Bill has nothing more to say about patients who have just stepped back from the brink of suicide; the medics will have no further obligation to ensure that they will be looked after—except by the GP, as soon as it is practicable for the provider who has just been denied the business of looking after the assisted death to get round to emailing them. If that is seen as sufficient to ensure that those patients will be properly looked after, I beg to differ.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

The Government have worked with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley on amendments 375 and 376. The amendments require that where the co-ordinating doctor, or any registered practitioner from the person’s GP practice, receives a notification or indication from the person seeking assistance under the Bill that the person wishes to cancel their first or second declaration, the doctor or practitioner must inform the voluntary assisted dying commissioner as soon as practicable. Where a registered practitioner from the person’s GP practice has received a notification or indication from the person to cancel their first or second declaration, they must also inform the co-ordinating doctor. I hope those observations are helpful to the Committee.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I repeat what I said earlier about what will happen to the patient if they choose to cancel: their care will continue. From a medical practitioner perspective, it is inconceivable that those patients would be abandoned, as the hon. Member for East Wiltshire is suggesting. That would not happen.

I understand that cancellation of the second declaration does not need to be included in clause 14(4) because of when in the process it would happen. The first declaration comes much earlier, so clauses 7 to 9 would be applicable; the second declaration comes further down the process, so does not need to be included. However, I am happy to look at that in further detail and come back to the hon. Member on that, if necessary.

Amendment 375 agreed to.

Amendment made: 376, in clause 14, page 10, line 12, after “doctor” insert “and the Commissioner”.—(Kim Leadbeater.)

This amendment requires a practitioner other than the coordinating doctor to notify the Commissioner (as well as the coordinating doctor) of a cancellation of a first or second declaration.

Clause 14, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15

Signing by proxy

[Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 321, in clause 15, page 10, line 33, at end insert—

“(d) the reason why the person was unable to sign their name.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

My hon. Friend is making a really sensible point and a fair argument, and I am very happy to support the amendment.

[Daniel Francis]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s acceptance of the amendment, and I think she sees the point behind it. It was meant not to be awkward—I do not think I have been at all awkward during this process—but simply to state that, if there were concerns later, the reason why the proxy was required should be there in a transparent way. I commend amendment 321 to the Committee.

[Danny Kruger]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I very much support his amendment; it is good to hear that the Bill’s promoter, the hon. Member for Spen Valley, will as well. The hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford has made his points very powerfully, and it is good that we are in agreement.

I also support amendment 431, tabled by the hon. Member for York Central, which would restrict proxies to donees of lasting power of attorney. The point is that somebody who has been through the process of taking on power of attorney has been properly vetted and approved; they are required to demonstrate their fitness for the role and undertake a meaningful duty of care to the person for whom they are a proxy. That strikes me as an appropriate suggestion from the hon. Lady.

Amendment 411, tabled by the hon. Member for Broxtowe, suggests that the phrase

“a person who is of good standing in the community”

should be deleted. I think she is absolutely right to suggest that. I made the point on Second Reading that—

[Kim Leadbeater]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Danny Kruger]

I think the hon. Lady is about to say that her own amendment addresses that point.

[Kim Leadbeater]

My point was that I think amendment 411 has been withdrawn.

[Danny Kruger]

Is that the case? I apologise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

I would not want to pre-empt the regulations, because clearly that is the point of the process. If this Bill gets Royal Assent, we then move on to making regulations, and I have confidence in the good offices of parliamentary counsel, legal advice and the drafting process. I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman, however, that the purpose of those regulations must be to remove ambiguity, not to increase it. I am confident that the system will produce regulations that address his concern.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Does the Minister agree that it will be on the record that we have had this conversation, and that many of us—including myself—have expressed our concerns about the concept of good standing in the community? I would like to think that that will be taken into consideration.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I am acutely conscious that every word we say in this Committee is on the record. My hon. Friend makes a valid point in that context.

The purpose of amendment 253 is to clarify that a person acting as a proxy can both sign and revoke a declaration on behalf of a person seeking assistance under the Bill. This amendment would extend the provisions under clause 15 to a person who is acting as proxy to the person seeking assistance under the Bill, enabling the proxy to act on behalf of the person to cancel their first or second declaration if they are unable to sign their own name by reason of physical impairment, being unable to read or for any other reason. I note that the cancellation of a declaration is governed by clause 14, and the cancellation may be given orally, via writing, or

“in a manner of communication known to be used by the person”.

It does not require the signature of the person seeking assistance under the Bill, so a proxy may not be required for some people in relation to revoking a declaration, even if they have been required under clause 15.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

I will speak first to my amendment 473. It is important to be clear that the role of the proxy is very specific and would be used only in a very limited number of cases, where the patient is not able to sign their own name. That is, however, important when we are talking about terminally ill people who may be physically impaired, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford alluded to.

[Danny Kruger]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady so soon into her speech. Nevertheless, the clause says that someone can use a proxy when they are unable to sign their name

“by reason of physical impairment, being unable to read or for any other reason”.

Does the hon. Lady acknowledge that that is tantamount to saying that somebody can have a proxy for any reason at all? There is literally no restriction in the clause on the reason for why somebody could have a proxy—anybody could have one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

That is why amendment 321 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford is really important. We have to put the reason down for why there is a proxy. It depends on personal circumstances and what that patient is going through, so we have to have a bit of flexibility, but they have to be unable to sign their name and they have to explain why they are unable to sign their name.

[Danny Kruger]

I hope that this does not appear pedantic, but we are talking about life and death after all. The patient’s inability to sign their name could be psychological; it is not as if they will have to do a writing test. They simply have to say that they are unable to sign their name, unless the hon. Lady is proposing that there could be some sort of test for that.

I entirely support amendment 321 in the name of the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford about the proxy being obliged to state the reason why—it is good to finally have the question “Why?” being asked in the Bill. Nevertheless, there is no obligation for anything to be done about that reason; someone could give a reason that would be regarded as irrelevant. I respect the intention behind the amendment, but it does not clarify the point that literally anybody could effectively get a proxy to sign their name, having said to the assessing doctor, “I want my friend to sign for me.”

[Kim Leadbeater]

That is the sort of thing that the doctor would explore with the patient. It would happen in a very limited set of circumstances. We have to accommodate people who are physically impaired as a result of their terminal illness, and we have to include that there are a range of circumstances where this might apply. The proxy is being asked not to make any kind of judgment or assessment, but merely to act as an intermediary for the patient if they are unable to sign for themselves. They would have to explain why they are unable to sign for themselves, and the proxy has to be satisfied that the person understands the nature and effect of the making of the declaration.

I thought long and hard about who should and should not be accepted as a proxy. As always, I try to imagine how it would be seen by someone with a terminal illness. As we know, no two people are the same, nor are their circumstances. The hon. Member for East Wiltshire said that surely it should be done by someone the patient knows. The clause defines a proxy as someone the patient has known for two years, which is an important inclusion, but not everyone might have known for two years a person who they are comfortable asking to undertake that role.

I also appreciate the challenges with the wording

“of good standing in the community”.

I will let the hon. Member for East Wiltshire and the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire fight that out among themselves. I am sure we all have our own version of what that means.

I have explored various options and, contrary to the suggestion of the hon. Member for East Wiltshire, I have spent a huge amount of time on this question, because it is very important. Looking at different lists, there is the list of people who can sign the back of someone’s passport. I do not think that would be appropriate, so I moved away from that. I have also looked at much shorter lists. I do think that this question would be part of a consultation; it is really important to get it right, which is why we must have it as part of a consultation. I am content that having the Secretary of State put it in regulations is the right thing to do.

As I said, I am happy to support amendment 321 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford. It is a sensible amendment that makes the reasons for the use of the proxy more transparent. If amendment 253 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Claire Hazelgrove) is moved, I am happy to support that too. As the Minister said, a cancellation need not be in writing; it can be made orally or through any other form of communication.

Amendment 321 agreed to.

Amendment made: 473, in clause 15, page 11, line 3, leave out from “person” to end of line and insert

“of a description specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.”—(Kim Leadbeater.)

This amendment provides that persons of a description specified in regulations (rather than persons “of good standing in the community”) may be proxies.

Amendment made: 253, in clause 15, page 11, line 3, at end insert—

“(6) For the purposes of this section “declaration” includes the cancellation of a declaration.”—(Sean Woodcock.)

This would allow a cancellation of the first or second declaration to be signed by a proxy.

Clause 15, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16

Recording of declarations and statements etc

Amendments made: 209, in clause 16, page 11, line 8, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c) and insert—

“(b) a report about the first assessment of a person is made under section 7;

(c) a report about the second assessment of a person is made under section 8;”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendments 420 and 421.

Amendment 377, in clause 16, page 11, line 12, leave out paragraph (d) and insert—

“(d) a certificate of eligibility has been granted in respect of a person;

(da) a panel has refused to grant such a certificate;”.—(Kim Leadbeater.)

This amendment is consequential on NC21.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I beg to move amendment 474, in clause 16, page 11, line 17, at end insert—

“(1A) In this section ‘recordable event’ means an event mentioned in a paragraph of subsection (1).”

This amendment is consequential on amendments 209 and 377.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 475, in clause 16, page 11, line 19, leave out from second “the” to “in” in line 21 and insert

“occurrence of the recordable event”.

This amendment is consequential on amendments 209 and 377.

Amendment 476, in clause 16, page 11, line 24, leave out from “the” to “, and” in line 26 and insert

“occurrence of the recordable event”.

This amendment is consequential on amendments 209 and 377.

Amendment 477, in clause 16, page 11, line 27, leave out from “the” to “in” in line 29 and insert

“occurrence of the recordable event”.

This amendment is consequential on amendments 209 and 377.

Amendment 478, in clause 16, page 11, line 30, leave out from second “a” to end of line 32 and insert

“declaration, report or statement within subsection (1) must include the original declaration, report or statement.”

This amendment is consequential on amendments 209 and 377.

Clause stand part.

[Kim Leadbeater]

The amendments are designed to streamline the drafting of the Bill. Taken together, they create a new definition of a recordable event, namely those events set out in clause 16(1), where declarations and statements are required at any stage of the process. We can all agree that record keeping is essential, so it is necessary to define the events that should be recorded. I commend the amendments to the Committee.

[Danny Kruger]

I very much respect the hon. Lady’s intention, and I support the amendments. On clause 16, however, I must take the opportunity to express a certain concern. The clause applies if, under subsection (1)(b), the co-ordinating doctor

“refuses to make…a statement”

to be entered into the person’s medical records. That is good but, as I understand it, a statement could be made that complies with the Bill but does not put on record, in relation to subsection (2), which requirements the co-ordinating doctor did not believe were satisfied. We have missed an opportunity to have more clarity about which exact requirements have not been met. There is also the eternal question about the co-ordinating doctor’s reasons for reaching that conclusion. I just note the missed opportunity to be a little safer with the drafting.

My more general point is about the importance of effective record keeping and declaration. I thank the hon. Member for Spen Valley, who throughout the whole Bill process has stressed the importance of good data collection and record keeping, which will be vital so that in later years, if the Bill passes, we can judge whether it is working as intended.

I am concerned about going on the evidence of other countries, which is frequently adduced in support of the Bill, particularly in respect of the absence of evidence of coercion, questions around capacity, proper administration of drugs or the support that patients receive. It is often said that concerns are exaggerated or inappropriate, “because look at what happens in other countries”, but let me briefly run through some evidence from abroad.

The fact is that no other country does adequate record keeping. One ambition of the hon. Member for Spen Valley that I really do share is to have a better system of keeping data than in other countries. In Oregon, the most recent annual report demonstrates a whole series of failures in record keeping. Ingestion status was unknown for 25% of the patients prescribed the drugs, so we do not know whether they took the drugs or what the process was. In 72% of cases, it was unknown whether there were complications; we have been talking about how exaggerated my concerns and those of other Members are about complications, but in 72% of cases in Oregon we do not know. In 30% of cases, it was unknown whether a healthcare provider was present. In 44% of cases, the duration between ingestion and death was unknown.

I very much recognise that the intention of the Bill is not to have those sorts of mistake. Indeed, the intention is to ensure that some of them should be impossible, because a doctor should be present and so on. Nevertheless, there is evidence that in other countries that have inspired the Bill, the data is inadequate. I will give a few more examples.

British Columbia has poor documentation, incomplete assessments, recurrent and excessive delays in reporting. In the debate on the last group of amendments, we spoke about the necessity that a doctor be informed if a declaration is cancelled; I am very concerned that that will not happen quickly and that people could fall through the gaps. That is what happens abroad. We have seen evidence from the former Attorney-General of Victoria, Australia, of all sorts of irregularities, with doctors falsely certifying that patients had signed statements and so on.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I do not know the details of the individual cases that the hon. Member speaks about, but he makes a powerful point and we absolutely agree on the importance of recording and monitoring. I know that he voted against the changes at clause 12, but I hope he gets some reassurance from the changes that the commission would bring in. Having the commission and the panels would ensure robust monitoring and reporting. I hope he agrees that that is a positive step.

[Danny Kruger]

I absolutely recognise that the hon. Lady has every intention of insisting that the system works well, that doctors do their job and that good record keeping happens. My concern throughout has been that we have not been robust enough in ensuring that all of that happens.

A huge amount of faith is being placed in the good professional conduct of doctors. Patient autonomy has been stressed, but it often translates into doctor autonomy. We are relying enormously on doctors doing their job well, and we are giving them significant latitude to do their job properly. As we see in other jurisdictions, particularly when assisted suicide becomes normalised and services are established explicitly to provide assisted suicide, we get into a dangerous area in which adequate documentation and reporting might not happen.

I will conclude with evidence from Canada, which is a very comparable country; it has a slightly different mechanism for delivering assisted suicide, but its legal framework is very similar to ours. The Health and Social Care Committee in our last Parliament received evidence from an academic in Canada, Dr Kotalik, who stated that federal regulations had been

“mandating a collection of data from MAID providers”,

just as the Bill will do. However, he noted that

“those legal and regulatory efforts have yet to produce evidence that the program operates as intended. We have no publicly accessible evidence that the eligibility criteria and safeguards prescribed by law were respected and that the Criminal Code has not been transgressed.”

It is fine for us, in this Committee and in Parliament, to specify that all doctors should do their job properly and that all data should be appropriately collected, transmitted and recorded. Nevertheless, as we all know from our casework, the reality is often one of bureaucratic mistakes being made, albeit not with any ill will. Given the volumes that we may well be dealing with, I think it is appropriate to raise significant concerns about the operation of the Bill and the data collection that we seek.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

The purpose of amendments 474 to 478 is to improve the drafting of the Bill by creating a new definition of “recordable event”. Recordable events are the events set out in clause 16(1) related to the recording of declarations and statements.

The amendments would also make consequential changes to clause 16, which refer to the occurrence of the recordable event, as per the new definition, and include reference to a report in addition to a statement or declaration. The reference to a report is consequential on the amendments already agreed by the Committee to clauses 7 and 8.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I have nothing further to add.

Amendment 474 agreed to.

Amendments made: 475, clause 16, page 11, line 19, leave out from second “the” to “in” in line 21 and insert

“occurrence of the recordable event”.

This amendment is consequential on amendments 209 and 377.

Amendment 476, in clause 16, page 11, line 24, leave out from “the” to “, and” in line 26 and insert

“occurrence of the recordable event”.

This amendment is consequential on amendments 209 and 377.

Amendment 477, in clause 16, page 11, line 27, leave out from “the” to “in” in line 29 and insert

“occurrence of the recordable event”.

This amendment is consequential on amendments 209 and 377.

Amendment 478, in clause 16, page 11, line 30, leave out from second “a” to end of line 32 and insert

“declaration, report or statement within subsection (1) must include the original declaration, report or statement.”—(Kim Leadbeater.)

This amendment is consequential on amendments 209 and 377.

Clause 16, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17

Recording of cancellations

[Kim Leadbeater]

I beg to move amendment 479, in clause 17, page 11, line 37, leave out “at” and insert “with”.

This amendment clarifies that a cancellation may be given to a practitioner with the person’s GP practice.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.

[Kim Leadbeater]

The amendment, which would clarify the drafting, speaks for itself. The important point is that the record of cancellation be with the GP practice as soon as is practicable. It is not necessary for that to take place physically at the practice, as that could potentially delay its delivery.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Clause 17(2) provides that where a notice or indication regarding a cancellation of a first or second declaration is given to a registered medical practitioner “at” the person’s GP practice, that practitioner must record the cancellation in the person’s medical records as soon as possible. Amendment 479 seeks to clarify that the requirement to record the cancellation applies not just where the cancellation is given to a registered medical practitioner physically at the GP practice, but where the cancellation is given to a registered medical practitioner “with” the person’s GP practice, irrespective of whether the notice was given at the GP practice. I hope that that explanation is helpful.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I commend the amendment to the Committee.

Amendment 479 agreed to.

Clause 17, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18

Provision of assistance

Amendment made: 378, in clause 18, page 12, line 9, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—

“(a) a certificate of eligibility has been granted in respect of a person,”.—(Kim Leadbeater.)

This amendment is consequential on NC21.

[Danny Kruger]

I beg to move amendment 462, in clause 18, page 12, line 20, at end insert—

“(3A) When providing a substance under subsection (3) the coordinating doctor must explain to the person that they do not have to go ahead and self administer the substance and they may still cancel their declaration.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech, and I thank him for the respectful way in which he is doing so. He has given an example of a very personal story; it is also important to remember the other personal stories we have all heard. We have with us today in the Public Gallery family members who have lost loved ones. Catie’s mum went to Dignitas in Switzerland for an assisted death, and her daughter could not go with her. As a family they have suffered to this day as a result of that experience.

We need to be really careful about the language we use around suicide. We have spoken about this before. The cases we have heard of are not people who want to die. They are people who want to live, but they are terminally ill. We need to be really sensitive to that, having heard so many examples of families who have been through these really difficult situations. But the hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, and I am minded to support his amendment because I think it comes from a good place.

[Danny Kruger]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I hear what she has said; we have had this conversation before. I am afraid that I do insist on my right to use the English language accurately. What is proposed in the Bill is a carve-out of the Suicide Act, so I regret to say to the hon. Lady that I will continue to describe it in terms that are appropriate to it. I hope I do so with absolute sympathy and respect for the many families who have suffered from the trauma of seeing their loved ones die badly—loved ones who would have wished for an assisted death under the terms of the Bill. I am very glad to hear that the hon. Lady supports my amendment. I do not think it would be any sort of imposition on families for the doctors to let the patient know at the last moment that they have the opportunity to turn back.

[Danny Kruger]

That is absolutely right. We have to think about the no doubt quite turbulent emotions that people will have as they approach the end of their life, and to reiterate their genuine autonomy. They are not on a conveyor belt that they cannot get off until the very last moment—until they have passed through this gateway. The amendment seeks to remind them and, indeed, their families of that. I am afraid we do hear terrible stories of people who have arranged their assisted death: often family members have flown in from abroad, doctors have been summoned and so on, and then they feel they have to proceed because, as the hon. Gentleman says, they feel a burden as it is and do not want to be an annoyance at the end by making everybody wait. I am afraid that is indeed the reason for the amendment. I am pleased to hear that it sounds like it will be accepted, and I am grateful to Members who will support it.

Amendment 463 is the other, more substantial, amendment in my name in this group. It would leave out paragraph (c) of clause 18(6), which says that the doctor can assist the patient

“to ingest or otherwise self-administer the substance.”

Here we are in a lot of difficulty and a grey area. Let me try to unpack the reasons for objecting to paragraph (c). The hon. Member for Spen Valley argued in an interview that there is a “very clear line” between the Bill and euthanasia, which is someone else doing the deed. She said that the act

“has to be the decision of the individual, and it has to be the act of the individual”,

which

“creates that extra level of safeguards and protections”.

I agree with her—it is right that we introduce the additional safeguard of insisting that the patient performs the final act themselves.

I recognise that there is a distinction between euthanasia and assisted suicide, and I support the hon. Lady’s attempt to insist on that distinction in the law. It is another safeguard. But the fact is that there is a blurred line between the two, and I can also understand why many people object to the exclusion of euthanasia—of the fatal act being administered by other people. A doctor from Canada said it was inherently ableist to require the patient to self-administer, and I think that is unarguable. If that is the case, the logical provision would be to enable euthanasia, if one believes in the autonomy of the patient.

I am afraid my strong belief is that the reason why euthanasia has not been proposed in the Bill or by the campaign, which has been led by an organisation that used to call itself the Voluntary Euthanasia Society, is because the campaign has concluded that such a Bill would not pass Parliament and believes—I think correctly—that Members of Parliament and members of the public would object to euthanasia. But the logic of the Bill and of the campaign is actually for euthanasia, if one believes genuinely in autonomy, in equal rights and in not discriminating against people who are physically unable to perform the act themselves.

Despite my efforts, hon. Members have not been able to conceptualise the difference between withdrawing a medical treatment that affects a particular medical condition on the one hand, and administering drugs that annihilate the person on the other. There is a meaningful and important difference between those two things. One is a person declining to use a shield, and the other is the person using a sword against themselves. I think there is a difference there, and I regret that colleagues do not see it.

Where I do not see a difference, however, is between a person injecting themselves and asking someone else to inject them. There are two versions of the death of Saul in the Bible. I think this is the only reference to the Bible that I will make in this whole debate, and I make it partly to show that there is an inconsistency in the Bible—there is not a single Biblical view of these matters. In one account of the death of Saul, having been defeated by the Philistines, he asks his servant to run him through with his sword, but his servant refuses, so he falls on his own sword and kills himself. In the other version, he gets a passing soldier to run him through—to kill him.

To me it does not matter: the inconsistency in the story is interesting historically, but conceptually, logically and morally I do not see the difference. Whether you fall on your own sword or ask someone else to do it to you, it is still a sword, you are still actioning it and you are still responsible, if we recognise that the individual has autonomy. But there is a practical difference. We are talking about assistance to die and the role of another person who supports your decision and helps you to fulfil it, but that results in an obscuring of the practical difference. In practice, as we see in clause 18(6), the assistant comes very close to euthanasia. The role of the assistant, in my view, is closer to that of the soldier who kills Saul than of the servant who refused to do it.

[Kim Leadbeater]

The hon. Member is making an interesting philosophical point with his biblical references. I think the point he may be making is that there might not be any difference for the individual, as the result is sadly the same, but I put it to him that there is quite a significant difference for the other person. If we think about the autonomy of the medical professionals we ask to be involved in the process, there is a strong argument that it would be very different for them to be more involved in the process. Does that makes sense?

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

I thank the hon. Member for East Wiltshire for his amendment, and for speaking in the powerful, sensitive way that he did. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Spen Valley and for Banbury, who made interventions.

I did not intend to speak to this amendment, but having heard the hon. Member for East Wiltshire speak so powerfully and sensitively, it is important for me to share a few things. My hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has said a couple of times that the difference between people who commit suicide and those who will take this route is that the patients have been given less than six months to live, and that was not a choice. I was a Samaritan for years, because I had two failed suicide attempts in my early years, and since then I have battled with mental health demons all my life because of my experiences. To suggest that there is a difference between someone who gets a terminal illness and wants to take this act and people who want to commit suicide, and to suggest that they are doing it out of choice, is wrong. I felt really emotional when that exchange was happening. The reason why I think it is wrong is that, at the time that I wanted to commit suicide, I did not feel that I had a choice. I could not see a way out.

When I was on those Samaritans phonelines, speaking to people who rang in to unpick their feelings about what was driving them to feel suicidal in that moment, it was not because they want to die, but because they were in circumstances that drove them to feel that they had no option but to commit suicide. In some instances, it takes an amount of courage and bravery to even contemplate that option. To diminish that, which I feel is what has, intentionally or unintentionally, happened on occasion, is really wrong, because I have been there, and it was not easy and it was not because I wanted to die.

[Kim Leadbeater]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I certainly have not heard anyone try to diminish the experience of suicidal people. We probably all have our own stories of loved ones who we have either lost to suicide—I know that I do—or who had very severe mental health issues. The point I would make is that the families I have met who have lost loved ones through assisted dying or a harrowing terminal-illness death have said that they desperately wanted to live. That is the distinction I would make, but I appreciate that my hon. Friend is absolutely right that people with suicidal tendencies and ideation also want to live—they just do not feel they have a choice. It is a very delicate debate to have, but please be assured of my sensitivities to it.

[Naz Shah]

I am genuinely grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention, because I do not want the Committee—or our constituents—to feel that there is an equivalence. There is not. People who are in that space, who ring the Samaritans helpline to speak to them, all desperately want to live a brilliant life. That is what brings us here: each and every one of us wants to make this place the best it can be, so that our country is the best it can be and all our communities, people and constituents—all members of society—thrive. It is a sensitive debate, but let us be careful not to draw a parallel where there is not one. It was important for me to put that on the record.

I will support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for East Wiltshire because we have already voted down an amendment requiring doctors to simply ask the question why. This speaks to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury raised: I know, through my experience at the Samaritans, as somebody who has attempted suicide and as somebody who has gone on to chair a charity that leads mental health interventions, how difficult it is for a patient has gone through the process of having had that conversation with their family, who might not necessarily agree, and having convinced them that they are going to take this option because they want autonomy, and fear losing it.

I cannot imagine what it must be like for those people, at that moment, saying their final goodbyes, and the level of potential pressure they face right at the last minute, having spoken to everybody and put their family members, and indeed themselves, through the process. Would they not feel internal pressure on themselves to go through with it? Would they really have the option, and not feel, in a sense, obliged to say, “Yes”? Do we really not want to ask that question?

When we debated the amendment requiring doctors to ask the question why, my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud said that doctors would ask it anyway, but that argument would not work in this instance because doctors would not do this anyway. They would not say, “I am about to give you something—have you changed your mind?”, because by that point they are in a process. The drug, in whatever form it takes, is in the process of being, or will have been, handed over to the person who wants to take that option, so it is not the same. I genuinely hope that the Committee will support the amendment, because it is our last option to make this intervention.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-fifth sitting)

Kim Leadbeater Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 18th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Stephen Kinnock]

The hon. Member’s concerns are absolutely noted. I completely understand that hon. Members are not comfortable with this, but what I am trying to do is set out the Government’s view on the workability of what my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley is seeking to achieve and the basic principles on which that is built.

Amendment 497, on which the Government have worked jointly with my hon. Friend, would amend clause 18(11), which states:

“Where the person decides not to self-administer the approved substance, or there is any other reason that the substance is not used, the coordinating doctor must remove it immediately from that person.”

Under the clause as it is currently drafted, there could be difficulties in relation to the duties of the co-ordinating doctor where the co-ordinating doctor does not know what the person has decided. Amendment 497 seeks to resolve that ambiguity by clarifying that the duty on the co-ordinating doctor to remove the approved substance applies where the person

“informs the coordinating doctor that they have decided”

not to self-administer the approved substance.

I turn to amendment 498. At present, clause 18(11) provides that the co-ordinating doctor has the duty to immediately remove the approved substance where the person decides not to self-administer the approved substance, or there is any other reason that the substance is not used. The amendment clarifies that the duty to remove the substance arises when the co-ordinating doctor believes that the substance will not be used. I hope that those observations have been helpful to the Committee.

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

The Minister has covered my amendments 497 and 498 very clearly, so I will not speak to them.

I am happy to support amendment 462, tabled by the hon. Member for East Wiltshire, about which we had a conversation this morning. I only make the observation that there is already a requirement in clause 18(4)(b) that, at the time the approved substance is provided, the co-ordinating doctor must be satisfied that the person has

“a clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life”.

Nevertheless, I am happy to support the amendment, because the hon. Member made a very valuable point this morning.

I cannot support amendment 463, however. The Bill states that the patient must self-administer the drugs. Clause 18(7) states that “the final act” of self-administering the substance

“must be taken by the person to whom the substance has been provided.”

That is very clear. The hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley, with his medical background and expertise, has been clear and helpful on this point: it is a question of passive versus active. We have to be clear that the patient must have an active role in self-administration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

I completely understand where these amendments are coming from. In many jurisdictions where assisted dying laws are in place, this would be an accepted part of the process. However, as I have said repeatedly, our Bill stands in its own right, and its safeguards are stronger than those anywhere else in the world. One of those safeguards is that the line cannot be crossed between a person shortening their own death by administering the drugs themselves and by having another person—in this case the doctor—do it for them.

While I am hugely sympathetic to the argument, that is a line that I do not believe the Bill should cross. I concur with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West about Second Reading and what the House voted for, and with those of the hon. Member for Reigate about medical profession levels, which we discussed this morning. I also agree with the Minister’s comments about the concept of an independent witness, and with the comments from the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley about the concept of additional assistance. On that basis, I will not be supporting the amendments.

[Tom Gordon]

I will keep it short and sweet. I had not intended to push the amendments to a vote and will not be doing so. A lot of important points have been raised. Irrespective of whether the amendments were going to be pushed to a vote or would have been successful, it is important that we listen to and take into account the voices of people with different diseases who might wish to access an assisted death. We must also take into account the evidence that organisations have submitted, because it is important that those voices are heard too. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

I am supportive of all the amendments in this grouping, including amendment 255 in the name of the hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Claire Hazelgrove) about the importance of recording the means of administration of the substance. We have discussed that a bit, and I think it is important to include it. The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford are also important, as they insist on the actual physical presence of a doctor while the treatment is being carried out. His amendments also suggest that there should be a code of practice about what should happen when things go wrong; I want to go further than that, but I do approve of that measure.

On amendments 532 and 533, tabled by the hon. Member for Ipswich, I again support in principle the requirement—although there is a little too much regulation by the Secretary of State, in my view—that we be clear about where the act should take place and make provision about what the co-ordinating doctor is legally permitted to do if they determine that the procedure has failed. That is the point I really want to discuss; the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), and the amendment that I tabled, would impose an obligation on the co-ordinating doctor to provide assistance if the procedure fails.

Let me take a moment to explain to the Committee how important it is that we recognise the genuine risk of that eventuality in the case of assisted suicide being performed. There is significant evidence—even given the lack of adequate data collection and the paucity of record keeping, with over half of assisted deaths not properly recorded at all in many places—that in places such as Oregon, which is one of the worst offenders when it comes to data collection, there are significant rates of complication. These can be difficulty with ingesting the drugs, regurgitation and seizures. As I said, 72% of deaths do not record whether complications have occurred, but among the quarter that do, there are significant rates of complication.

Sometimes death can take days, and there can be a long time of unconsciousness. The Committee has heard from me and others in previous debates about the extent to which there is real concern about the actual experience of the administration of assisted death. But it is striking how ill-defined the current Bill is on the point about complications, compared to jurisdictions where such laws are in operation. In other countries, there is clear guidance in law for what should be done. In the Netherlands, euthanasia is recommended when assisted suicide seems to be failing; in Canada, doctors are likewise given licence to administer the death themselves if it fails. The Committee has decided not to proceed down that road. Nevertheless, the question arises as to what on earth patients should do.

To the point that we are talking about a small or non-existent population group—those we might have to worry will experience complications after the administration of fatal drugs—I refer back to a previous debate, when the hon. Member for Stroud, referring to me, said:

“The hon. Gentleman is bringing up lots of rather horrible stories about assisted death. That is why, in Australia, Switzerland and Holland, they have decided, instead of using the regime that he is talking about, to use pentobarbital…One of the reasons why Dignitas uses it is that it is so effective and it does not have those effects.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 11 March 2025; c. 925.]

Having looked into the issue and consulted other medics, I am afraid that the fact is that the safety of pentobarbital is highly contested. It has been debated in litigation in the United States because of its use as a death penalty drug. The executioners who used it said that the deaths were peaceful and akin to falling asleep, but lawyers for inmates on death row have said that

“pentobarbital caused flash pulmonary edema, in which fluid rushes through quickly disintegrating membranes into lungs and airways, causing pain akin to being suffocated or drowned.”

That is evidence from professionals who have examined the effect of pentobarbital on deceased people.

The anesthesiologist Joel Zivot of Emory University hospital in the United States testified to the Canadian Senate on the subject of assisted suicide drugs. He said that when he researched the autopsies of those executed by lethal injection, he stumbled on an alarming discovery:

“When I looked at the autopsies, to my surprise, I found that, in most of the cases, the individuals who had been executed by pentobarbital had fluid congested in their lungs. The lungs of these individuals were twice the normal weight, full of water. Now, the only way that this could have happened would have been as a direct consequence of the pentobarbital that was injected into these individuals.”

What is the relevance of that for assisted dying?

[Kim Leadbeater]

I am not aware of the situation in America, but is the hon. Gentleman not reassured that the evidence from Dignitas, which we all now have access to, says that there have been

“no cases of failure at Dignitas using this medication”?

[Danny Kruger]

Let me come on to that, because I am not aware of any evidence from Dignitas that disputes the assertion that is being made—certainly none that would meet the concerns raised by the genuine evidence of the effect of pentobarbital on death row patients. Again, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I do not think that Dignitas has supplied evidence to contradict the point that I am making.

[Kim Leadbeater]

For the hon. Gentleman’s reference, I believe that the evidence is TIAB 425.

[Danny Kruger]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. Let me let me look that up later. I am happy to exchange data, because this is clearly something we should be trying to get right.

Nevertheless, I want to try to explain why I am suggesting that we have a problem with the drugs that are used in assisted dying and that it has been suggested we use here. Let me continue the quote from Dr Zivot:

“When one watches an execution, it’s not clear that this is happening”—

meaning that it looks like a peaceful, painless death. He continues:

“There is not much to see. Executions, like, I imagine, medical assistance in dying, are a rather bloodless event; not much can be seen outwardly. But the autopsies revealed a very disturbing and surprising finding.”

He makes the point that that is particularly disturbing, given that assisted dying often uses a paralysing drug, which induces the impression of peace and calm in the patient, when in fact something else might be going on below the surface.

To conclude my quote from Dr Zivot, he says:

“To claim that this is a death that is peaceful, well, it can be nothing else because now a person is unable to move in any way, but whether or not they have any conscious experience of what is happening is unknown…it should be clear to the Canadian public that the kind of death that they will experience…will be something other than the way it is represented. It could be exceedingly painful and more akin to drowning.”

I cannot judge whether Dr Zivot is right, but we should be very wary of any claims that there is a simple answer to the question surrounding lethal drugs. To the point made by the hon. Lady, and I think by the hon. Member for Stroud, there is no evidence in the many reports from Dignitas, which has a regime very similar to the one we are imagining here—I will certainly look at the evidence mentioned made by the hon. Lady—that contradicts the concerns raised by Dr Zivot.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

There is great anxiety about the validity of much of the evidence in this space. I have great respect for the work of Dr Zivot, because nothing else gets us close to understanding the actual effect of these drugs, once somebody has died.

[Kim Leadbeater]

In response to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West, the evidence from Dignitas is really clear: there have been no cases of failure when using this medication.

[Danny Kruger]

My strong suspicion is that this is because the evidence is not being accurately collected or reported. With Dignitas and in all these jurisdictions, as the hon. Lady has acknowledged, there are significant failures of data and record keeping. Obviously, it is very much in Dignitas’s interest not to collect and certainly not to publicise evidence of things going wrong. However, that clearly happens in jurisdictions where data is properly collected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Abbott]

I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make. We have discussed this point at length, across a range of subject areas, but we cannot legislate for every single permutation that could possibly happen. That could be about the initial conversations, when the patient is given a terminal diagnosis. Where do those conversations leave us? Clearly there will be a number of different scenarios, which could occur to various degrees.

I do not think it is possible to legislate for every single eventuality. I do not believe that whether to revive or not revive will be so black and white; it will completely depend on the scenario at that particular moment in time. Therefore, further work would need to be done over the coming months and years before the final introduction of the Bill. I believe that it is important to allow the time for that work to happen alongside the existing guidance as it stands.

I do not seek in my amendment to stipulate exactly what every single permutation might be—indeed, that could run to many pages and beyond. The amendment seeks to empower the Secretary of State and the Department to make sure that those eventualities, and the concerns that the hon. Member for East Wiltshire has raised, are covered by regulations over time.

In my view, the failure to provide a clear answer to these questions is an oversight. Data from Oregon shows that it is unfortunately not totally uncommon for patients to suffer complications following the administration of a lethal substance. In 2023, of the 102 patients for whom we have data on whether they suffered complications—out of a total of 367 patients who died by assisted death in Oregon in that year—10 suffered complications. That is just under 10% of the patients we have data for.

Of those 10, eight had difficulty ingesting the substance or regurgitated it. One suffered a seizure, and for one we have no data of what complications occurred. If I may say so to the hon. Member for East Wiltshire, that goes back to the variances that I referred to. It is not as simple as whether to resuscitate or otherwise. There are a number of different factors. Although that is a relatively small sample size, it shows the diversity of the challenges ahead.

In Oregon, information about complications is reported only when a physician or another healthcare provider is present at the time of death, which means that we evidently have less data on this issue than is desirable. However, despite the small sample size, that data would put the complication rate at one in 10. It would not be a completely uncommon occurrence for patients to experience complications following the administration of a lethal substance, although it would be rare.

[Kim Leadbeater]

My hon. Friend is referring to Oregon. Obviously every jurisdiction has its own methodology when it comes to assisted dying. Is he reassured somewhat by the evidence from Dignitas that for not one person did the procedure fail? A survey from Victoria in Australia showed that 1,076 deaths from the self-administration process took place, and 86% of patients died within one hour. There are different models, and it is important to look more broadly at this if we can.

[Jack Abbott]

I fully accept my hon. Friend’s points, and I agree. To reiterate, complications are not a regular occurrence by any means. They are relatively uncommon. In saying that, there are still 10% of people who did experience them. As she says, these complications are not huge, but there were issues with being able to ingest the substance or with regurgitating it. The figure of 86% that my hon. Friend refers to is absolutely correct, but that would suggest that for 14% of people it took longer than an hour. In my view, that is a relatively high percentage for what we are talking about here.

As I say, my amendment does not seek to stipulate in the Bill exactly what measures have to be taken in every single scenario. I am not suggesting for a moment that we have to legislate about what we must do in the event that, for instance, someone has difficulty ingesting the substance; I am sure that will come naturally with the GMC regulations. I fully appreciate the points made about how this will probably naturally occur, but it is important to provide a reassurance that we are looking at the long-term effects in such scenarios.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lewis Atkinson]

I think the Bill is very clear on the legal parameters. A doctor may not act, in terms of administering the substance, in a way to hasten death. Within that, we are back into the realms of normal medical practice, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud set out. I am sure that there will be legal guidance, whether that be from the GMC or elsewhere, if and when the Bill were to pass. The Secretary of State would have the powers anyway under clause 30, but for the avoidance of doubt, amendment 430 strikes the right balance in giving backstop permissions to the Secretary of State to clarify anything if needed.

[Kim Leadbeater]

On the hon. Member for Richmond Park’s point, which a couple of people have made, I do not think anyone is saying that this is not a new situation—of course it is, as we are all aware. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud’s point was that a doctor being with a patient who is dying is not a new situation. That is the important distinction.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

I can help my hon. Friend out on this point. There is an expectation in the jurisdictions where assisted dying happens that it happens in different locations, very much centred around the patient’s wishes, which is the approach we should take.

[Lewis Atkinson]

That is exactly right. That will quite possibly include people’s individual homes as well as not in their homes, in places of appropriate care and peace and tranquillity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

How amendment 436 is drafted makes for a real challenge, because it is not clear what detail should be set out in the person’s medical records or in the report to the chief medical officer and the voluntary assisted dying commissioner. There is ambiguity in the drafting of the amendment.

[Kim Leadbeater]

To try to tie this together, I should say that there seems to be consensus that something has to be recorded in the event of complications. It feels to me as though what the Government are saying is that this is not the best crafted way of doing that—that is the worst sentence ever; I apologise. We have to look at the best way of achieving the intention of a number of amendments. I am looking at amendment 430, which I think achieves the objective. This feels as though it is a drafting issue, rather than necessarily a policy issue. I might be wrong.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Of course, if we can find ways to improve the Bill, we should—that is what this Bill Committee is for. But the input from my officials and parliamentary counsel legal advice have raised red flags about the amendments because of how they are drafted and the ambiguity that they give rise to. Clearly, it is up to the Committee to decide whether it wants to include the amendments or whether those issues could be looked at later—either on Report or when the Bill is going through the other place.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Fundamentally, the role of the promoter of the Bill is to decide whether the Bill, as passed through this Committee, meets the policy intent that she wishes to achieve. Our job as Ministers is to work with her to deliver that objective. If the promoter of the Bill comes to the view that any of the amendments should be considered and added to the Bill, we will of course work with her to enable them to be delivered. My job at the moment is simply to say that there are concerns about these amendments due to the issue of ambiguity.

[Kim Leadbeater]

As a matter of clarity, although I appreciate the power that the Minister has just given me, which amendments we vote for is actually the job of the Bill Committee—rather than just my job, I would hope.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Absolutely, it is the job of the Committee to decide which amendments pass, but my hon. Friend’s role as the promoter of the Bill is to define the policy intent of the Bill—its fundamental objectives, the fundamental safeguards issues and its architecture in that sense. It is absolutely the responsibility of the Bill Committee to decide whether to amend the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

My response would be to refer the hon. Lady to clause 30(1), which sets out that the Secretary of State will produce a code of practice. Amendment 430, which my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has said she is minded to support, would also ensure that the code of practice includes guidance on the matter that the hon. Lady raises. I think there is a commitment to a code of practice, and if amendment 430 passes then it would be explicitly in the Bill that that code of practice should include the issue that she raises.

Amendment 533 places a duty on the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying where the provision of assistance under the Bill may take place. It sets out a requirement on the Secretary of State to consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate prior to making such regulations, including certain specified groups.

Amendment 430 would broaden the Secretary of State’s power to issue codes of practice under clause 30. It would explicitly enable the Secretary of State to issue a code of practice in connection with responding to unexpected complications that arise in relation to the administration of the approved substance under section 18, including when the procedure fails.

I understand that amendment 255 is no longer relevant as it relates to schedule 6, which is going to be changed—I think that is right—so, in that sense, the amendment is null and void. I hope that those observations were helpful.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I thank colleagues for a thorough discussion of a group of interesting and important amendments. Amendment 429, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford, would require the doctor to remain in the same room as the person. I respectfully disagree with my hon. Friend on that point. If a person is literally in the last few minutes and moments of their life, it should be up to them to decide who is in the room with them. In some cases, that might be the doctor, but I suspect that in many cases it would be loved ones and close family members.

We have had a thorough discussion of the range of amendments that look at how we deal with complications. My view is that amendment 430 would do what needs to be done. We need the Bill to show that this has been considered, and the logical place for that would be clause 30, on codes of practice. I am happy to support that amendment when the time comes to vote on it.

[Danny Kruger]

The Minister suggested that there will be a code of practice, but clause 30 says that there “may” be a code of practice. Does the hon. Member accept that there might not be one and that, even if there were, the only obligation on professionals would be to have regard to such a code? There is a big difference between that and a stipulation in the Bill.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I believe that amendment 447, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central, would change the “may” to a “must”. I am minded to support it for that very reason.

Amendment 532, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich, comes from a good place as is meant to be a way of trying to help the doctor, but I worry, as medical colleagues have commented during our deliberations, that it could create more of a problem for the doctor in that it would remove flexibility and the use of their clinical judgment and expertise. It always worries me when we are considering putting that level of detail in the Bill.

[Jack Abbott]

I appreciate what my hon. Friend is getting at in terms of what might happen down the line, but the amendment would not restrict any doctor’s flexibility at all or bind them in any way. All it would do is ask the Secretary of State to form a set of regulations.

[Kim Leadbeater]

The challenge would be in whether the co-ordinating doctor would be able to take actions that were not listed. I worry that a list would be quite restrictive. Amendment 430, which would look at the code of practice, would achieve something in a less restrictive way, which is why I am minded to support it.

We have had a really interesting discussion about amendment 533, and we will probably come further down the line to discuss where patients should have the choice to have an assisted death. I am not entirely sure how the amendment would work, which is why I am not minded to support it.

I am slightly concerned about the terminology and am not sure what the definition of “disadvantaged and marginalised communities” would be for the purposes of the amendment. I refer my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich to new clause 8—the duty to consult—bearing in mind that there will be a long period of consultation before the Bill, if it passes, is enacted.

The Minister referred to amendment 255, which I think will fall as it refers to a schedule that has been removed from the Bill.

[Danny Kruger]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

I rise to support amendment 22, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft. Before I carry on, I am happy to give my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley the opportunity to say whether she will accept the amendment, because my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft has had a hat-trick of amendments being accepted around training on coercion.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I am very happy to accept amendment 22 from my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft, as it follows the theme of the previous amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

There are some amendments in this grouping—namely, amendments 210 and 49—that we worked on with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, and I will come to them later in my remarks.

If amendment 408 is passed, the person to whom assistance is being provided would have to be consulted before they consent in writing to another medical practitioner being authorised to carry out the co-ordinating doctor’s functions. All registered medical practitioners must uphold the standards set out in the General Medical Council’s “Good medical practice”, which requires registered medical practitioners to support patients to make informed decisions prior to consenting. Therefore, the proposed amendment may have relatively minimal impact.

Turning to amendment 210, clause 19(2)(b) sets out that a registered medical practitioner may be authorised to carry out the co-ordinating doctor’s functions only where they have

“completed such training, and gained such qualifications and experience, as the Secretary of State may specify by regulations.”

The purpose of the amendment is to provide that the required training, qualifications or experience are to be determined by a person or organisation specified in the regulations. An example of such a specified organisation might be the General Medical Council. Allowing for that to be specified in regulations rather than on the face of the Bill ensures flexibility.

Amendment 499 provides that where a registered medical practitioner who is authorised to carry out the functions of the co-ordinating doctor is not satisfied that all matters have been met, they must notify the co-ordinating doctor immediately.

If amendment 22 is made, regulations made by the Secretary of State on the necessary training, qualifications and experience of the named registered medical practitioner who is authorised by the co-ordinating doctor to carry out the co-ordinating doctor’s functions under clause 18 would need to include mandatory training relating to domestic abuse, including coercive control and financial abuse. The Committee has already made equivalent changes to requirements on training for the co-ordinating and independent doctors, so this amendment would bring the clause into line, should the co-ordinating doctor change, for the purposes of clause 18. Should this amendment be accepted, it would require setting up training mechanisms to equip registered medical practitioners with the knowledge and skills needed to identify domestic abuse, including coercive control and financial abuse.

On clause 19—sorry, I was going to refer to clause 19 stand part. That is the end of my observations.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Clause 19 applies when the co-ordinating doctor may not be available to provide assistance. They may be out of the country or unavailable due to other personal circumstances, as the hon. Member for Richmond Park articulated beautifully—I associate myself with her comments. Of course the doctor who steps in has to be trained appropriately, and if they are not satisfied of all the matters mentioned in clause 18(4), they must immediately notify the co-ordinating doctor. That is what my amendments 210 and 499 cover.

On amendment 408 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe, who sadly is not with us today, it could be argued—and I take on board the comments by the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley—that it is unnecessary because it would be common practice by practitioners to consult. However, I also take on board the fact that the word “consultation” does some heavy lifting, and I think that is an important point, so I am happy to support amendment 408.

I have mentioned already in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West that I am happy to support amendment 22, for the reasons I have given previously in relation to similar amendments.

[The Chair]

Just before we move on to Sarah Olney to wind up the debate, I think I heard the Minister say, “No, that’s stand part.” Stand part is part of this grouping. Did the Minister wish to comment on stand part?

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 482 would mean that regulations specifying one or more drugs or other substances as approved substances would be subject to the affirmative procedure instead of the negative procedure. The affirmative procedure would require approval by both Houses of Parliament, which may extend the timeline to make or change regulations and could extend the overall timeline for delivery. I hope that those observations have been helpful to the Committee.

[Kim Leadbeater]

My view is that this is very clearly a matter for the Secretary of State, but with expert clinical and medical guidance. These are the people who should be making the decisions about such drugs. The evidence about this type of medication exists. As part of the commencement period and the consultation period, I anticipate there will be wide consultation about the drugs that are available. I think it is best left with the Secretary of State, so I would leave the clause unamended.

[Danny Kruger]

I will press amendments 465 to 467, but not amendment 409. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

This amendment provides that the form of a final statement is to be set out in regulations (rather than in Schedule 6).

[Kim Leadbeater]

I beg to move amendment 379, in clause 21, page 14, line 10, at end insert—

“(3A) The coordinating doctor must, as soon as practicable, give a copy of the final statement to the Commissioner.”

This amendment requires the coordinating doctor to give the Commissioner a copy of a final statement.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 500, in clause 21, page 14, line 10, at end insert—

“(3A) Regulations under subsection (3)(a) must provide that a final statement contains the following information—

(a) the person’s full name and last permanent address;

(b) the person’s NHS number;

(c) the name and address of the person’s GP practice (at the time of death);

(d) the coordinating doctor’s full name and work address;

(e) the date of each of the following—

(i) the first declaration;

(ii) the report about the first assessment of the person;

(iii) the report about the second assessment of the person;

(iv) the certificate of eligibility;

(v) the second declaration;

(vi) the statement under section 13(5);

(f) details of the illness or disease which caused the person to be terminally ill (within the meaning of this Act);

(g) the approved substance provided;

(h) the date and time of death;

(i) the time between use of the approved substance and death.”

This amendment provides that regulations about the form of a final statement must make the provision mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (i).

Amendment 439, in clause 21, page 14, line 20, at end insert—

“(7) The relevant body must supply—

(a) full medical records,

(b) court records, and

(c) all documentation relating to the assessments and procedures,

relating to bringing about the death of the person in accordance with this act must be made available to the Chief Medical Officer and the Assisted Dying Commissioner.

(8) For the purposes of subsection 7 the ‘relevant body’ is—

(a) the coordinating doctor, if they are a practitioner with the person’s GP Practice;

(b) in any other case, the person’s GP practice.”

This amendment would require full medical records, court records and all documentation relating to assessments and procedures to be supplied to the Chief Medical Office and Assisted Dying Commissioner.

Clause stand part.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Amendment 379 would ensure that the co-ordinating doctor provides the commissioner with a copy of their final statement in cases in which the person has successfully been provided with assistance to end their life in accordance with the Bill. That is an important part of the reporting procedures and of the role of the commissioner. If agreed to, the amendment will ensure a robust recording and monitoring process for assisted dying.

Amendment 500 provides that regulations about the form of the final statement must make the provision mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (i) of proposed new subsection (3A). It builds on my amendment 214, which would amend subsection (3)(a) to require that the form of the final statement must be set out in

“regulations made by the Secretary of State”.

This is another way of ensuring robust and thorough reporting.

[Danny Kruger]

I thank the hon. Lady for explaining the purpose of the amendments. Amendment 500 specifies the information that a final statement must contain. Will she clarify why there is no requirement to record any details of what happened once the drugs were administered, other than the time between the use of the approved substance and death?

In this debate, we have acknowledged the importance of record keeping. If the intention is to maintain public confidence in the system, should there not be some provision to record whether complications happen and what complications there were? This skirting of the issue of complications is concerning. We have ruled out explicitly informing patients of the risk of complications.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I do not think that anyone has ruled out discussing complications. Clause 9 makes it clear that the doctor has a very clear discussion with the patient about what will happen if they proceed with an assisted death.

[Danny Kruger]

I am sorry; I mis-spoke. I should have said that we have ruled out clarifying the expectations of what doctors should do in the event of an assisted death, and whether or not that is specified by the patient.

Earlier today, the Committee again ruled out specifying what the obligations on doctors are if complications arise, whatever the patient has discussed earlier. With this amendment, we now seem to be ruling out gathering any information about what happened, which is surely vital not just for safeguarding but to develop good practice in the operation of the Bill, a point that the hon. Member for Ashford made earlier. There is too much silence in the Bill, between the taking of the substance and death, on what happens if there are complications, what is permitted and, now, what is recorded. Amendment 439, in the name of the hon. Member for York Central, attempts to address that point. I hope that the Committee will accept it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

The amendments relate to clause 21, which applies where the person has been provided with assistance to end their own life in accordance with the Bill and has died as a result. Throughout this process, we have worked with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley. Amendments 379 and 500 have been mutually agreed on by her and the Government, so I will offer a few technical and factual comments.

Amendment 379 would require that, where a person has been provided with assistance to end their life and has died as a result, the co-ordinating doctor must provide the voluntary assisted dying commissioner with a copy of the final statement under clause 21 as soon as practicable. That links to the commissioner’s role in monitoring the operation of the Bill, as set out in new clause 14. Amendment 500 sets out the information that must be included in the form of a final statement, which is to be set out in regulations in accordance with amendment 214.

The effect of amendment 439 would be to introduce a new requirement for the relevant body, defined as either the co-ordinating doctor or the person’s GP practice, to provide full medical records, court records and all documentation related to assessments and procedures relating to bringing about the death of the person in accordance with the Bill to the chief medical officer and the voluntary assisted dying commissioner. The amendment is broad, and it is not clear whether doctors would be able to comply with the duties fully.

For example, GPs do not normally have access to court records, and would need to request them to provide them to the chief medical officer and the commissioner. Currently, a decision to share court records is made at the discretion of the judiciary in most cases. As such, any statutory burden to disclose court records agreed by both Houses would require consultation with the independent judiciary. Depending on the type of record, there could also be data protection considerations.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I have nothing to add other than to respond to the fair point made by the hon. Member for East Wiltshire about complications. The doctor does have to record the final statement in the medical records, and I am confident that they would also record any complications in the medical records. Similarly, we have talked about the code of practice with regard to complications, so there is scope to include what would happen in those instances there. It is, however, a fair point, and it could be something to look at amending on Report, if the hon. Gentleman wants it to be in the Bill.

Amendment 379 agreed to.

Amendment made: 500, in clause 21, page 14, line 10, at end insert—

“(3A) Regulations under subsection (3)(a) must provide that a final statement contains the following information—

(a) the person’s full name and last permanent address;

(b) the person’s NHS number;

(c) the name and address of the person’s GP practice (at the time of death);

(d) the coordinating doctor’s full name and work address;

(e) the date of each of the following—

(i) the first declaration;

(ii) the report about the first assessment of the person;

(iii) the report about the second assessment of the person;

(iv) the certificate of eligibility;

(v) the second declaration;

(vi) the statement under section 13(5);

(f) details of the illness or disease which caused the person to be terminally ill (within the meaning of this Act);

(g) the approved substance provided;

(h) the date and time of death;

(i) the time between use of the approved substance and death.”—(Kim Leadbeater.)

This amendment provides that regulations about the form of a final statement must make the provision mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (i).

Clause 21, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 22

Other matters to be recorded in medical records

[Kim Leadbeater]

I beg to move amendment 380, in clause 22, page 14, line 25, at end insert—

“(1A) The coordinating doctor must, as soon as practicable, notify the Commissioner that this has happened.”

This amendment requires the coordinating doctor to notify the Commissioner of a matter mentioned in subsection (1).

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 440, in clause 22, page 14, line 34, at end insert—

“(4) For the purposes of subsections (2) and (3)(b), the information recorded must include—

(a) any interventions made by a medical practitioner in response to the procedure failing, and

(b) the timing of those interventions.”

This amendment would specify certain information to be recorded under section 22 when the procedure fails.

Clause stand part.

[Kim Leadbeater]

The amendment would require that if a person has decided not to take the substance or the procedure has failed, the co-ordinating doctor must, as soon as is practicable, notify the commissioner of that. It is fairly straightforward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

Amendment 380 is one that the Government have worked on with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley. As the Bill currently stands, clause 22 sets out that where a person decides not to take an approved substance provided under clause 18 or where the procedure fails, the co-ordinating doctor must record that that has happened in the person’s medical record or inform a registered medical practitioner with the person’s GP practice. The amendment would require that in those circumstances, the voluntary assisted dying commissioner must also be notified.

I turn to amendment 440. As I have just mentioned, clause 22 provides that the co-ordinating doctor is required either to record in the person’s medical records or inform a medical practitioner registered at that person’s GP practice if the person has decided not to take the substance or the procedure has failed.

The amendment increases the requirements on the co-ordinating doctor to document in such cases any interventions made by a medical practitioner and the timing of those interventions. The requirement on the co-ordinating doctor to record interventions following a failed procedure is open-ended in time, which could lead to operational challenges. For example, the co-ordinating doctor would remain obliged to record the medical interventions made by others in response to the procedure failing, even if those interventions took place weeks or months after the event itself. I hope that those observations have been helpful to the Committee.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I have nothing to add, other than to say that the complications that have been referred to many times today would be covered by the code of practice that we will introduce by agreeing to amendment 430.

Amendment 380 agreed to.

Amendment proposed: 440, in clause 22, page 14, line 34, at end insert—

“(4) For the purposes of subsections (2) and (3)(b), the information recorded must include—

(a) any interventions made by a medical practitioner in response to the procedure failing, and

(b) the timing of those interventions.” —(Sean Woodcock.)

This amendment would specify certain information to be recorded under section 22 when the procedure fails.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-sixth sitting)

Kim Leadbeater Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 19th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Stephen Kinnock]

I agree with the sentiment of the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. The challenge is that the way in which the amendment is drafted could well lead to unintended consequences, because the scope is not clear. If we are not clear what the scope is, it could potentially be exponential.

New clause 23 would prevent regulated care homes and hospices from facing any detrimental consequences for not providing or permitting assistance in accordance with the Bill. This also means that their funding must not be conditional on them providing or permitting such assistance to take place on their premises. As a result, a person who is terminally ill and is residing in a care home or hospice could be asked or required to leave that care home or hospice in order to receive assistance under the Bill, if that care home or hospice provider does not wish to allow assisted dying on their premises.

In such circumstances, the care home or hospice provider would not be able to be placed in any detriment as a result of any action or decision taken. This could engage a person’s right under article 8 of the ECHR. Further, public authorities would not be able to persuade care homes or hospices to provide or permit assistance to take place on their premises by offering additional funding if they agreed to do so. Equally, if a public authority gave funding to care homes or hospice providers in recognition of their agreement to provide or permit assisted dying on their premises, and that provider later decided not to provide or permit the assistance, and spent the funding on other matters, the public authority would not be able to recover the funding if it were given unconditionally.

Clause 23 sets out that no registered medical practitioner or other health professional would be under any duty to participate in the provision of assistance in accordance with the Bill. It also sets out that employees cannot be subject to any detriment by their employer for exercising their right to either participate or not participate in the provision of assistance in accordance with the Bill. Further amendment to the clause will be required on Report to ensure that the opt-out in clause 23(1) and the employment protections in clause 23(2) work effectively alongside the duties imposed on health professionals in other provisions of the Bill as amended in Committee.

I hope those observations were helpful.

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

Thank you for stepping into the breach this morning, Ms McVey.

Clause 23 provides that there will be no obligation on medical practitioners and health professionals to provide assistance as set out in the assisted dying process. We know doctors and other health professionals hold a variety of views on assisted dying. A significant number are in support of what this Bill sets out to do, and the experience from other jurisdictions is that that number increases once it is seen to be working safely and effectively in practice. Others, of course, would object to being involved at any stage and I am very respectful of that. The Bill is about giving terminally ill people choice and autonomy, but it is absolutely right that the principle of autonomy is extended to registered medical practitioners, health professionals and others.

As such, I turn to amendment 480. I agree with the intention behind the amendment—nobody should have a duty to be involved with the provision of assistance in accordance with the legislation—and I think there is consensus across the Committee on that.

However, I am concerned about the drafting of the amendment, the lack of clarity around being directly or indirectly in the provision of assistance, and the framing of the selective list of activities. I fear that the amendment could have unintended consequences and an impact on continuity of care, and I take on board the Minister’s comments about the significant legal uncertainty that that would create. I therefore cannot support the amendment as drafted but, as I have said, I am happy to work with the hon. Member for East Wiltshire to consider an alternative amendment that would better achieve the aim of ensuring that no one has an obligation to take part in the assisted dying process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

Obviously, the sentiment that we should work with hospices and let them set their own policy is absolutely right—that is the purpose of the amendment—but does the hon. Lady acknowledge that the Minister just said that if any hospice attempts to prevent assisted dying from taking place on their premises, there will be human rights claims? They can have all the consultations and conversations they want, but unless the Bill specifies that they are allowed to opt out, they will be forced to do it.

[Kim Leadbeater]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and I am aware of the Minister’s comments. This will be part of the discussion as we take it forward. That is why this debate is really powerful.

In their written evidence, the trustees at Willow Burn hospice, based in the UK, told us:

“Our Mission is to deliver hospice care of the highest standard to our patients and those important to them...We also believe that we should support and enable people to make the choices that matter to them.”

They said they had not decided their position on assisted dying and remained

“open minded about possible future actions. We believe this stance is in the best interests of patients and their families and reflects the wishes of our community.”

I welcome that open-minded approach and their commitment

“to put care, compassion and dignity at the heart of everything”

they do. Contrary to what the hon. Member East Wiltshire has said, the picture is not black and white. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich in that regard.

Colleagues may remember the evidence given to the Committee by the CEO of Hospice UK, Toby Porter. He clarified for us that institutions do not function in the same way as individuals when it comes to conscience-influencing decisions. He told us:

“There is this idea that your individual opinion guides everything, but with a hospice charity the opposite is true. As many Members will know because of their own work as trustees, the trustees and leadership of a hospice team are required to put personal opinion and interest to one side and always act in the best interest of the charity’s beneficiaries, who are the population.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 195, Q255.]

It is also important to remember that international experience shows that up to 30% to 40% of patients who sign up to the assisted dying process ultimately do not access it. Palliative care may meet their needs, or they may simply change their mind. However, we also know that the reassurance and comfort that the choice of an assisted death provides alongside other treatment and care is really important to them, and I do not believe that reassurance should be denied to some people because of the institution they happen to be in.

[Kit Malthouse]

The hon. Lady is outlining the issues very effectively. No one, of course, is saying that anybody who works at the hospice that may object has to participate. It may say, “No one here will assist.” We have talked about the importance of place. To a certain extent, I have a right as a tenant in a place where I am resident. It seems that my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire is proposing actively to prevent someone from being able to access this in a place that they choose. That feels to me the wrong balance. I wonder whether that is broadly where she is heading.

[Kim Leadbeater]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The word that we have used a lot—maybe not enough in some respects—is choice. That is important for individuals, but it is important for institutions as well. Putting an institutional opt-out in the Bill would risk creating confusion and distress for patients and their loved ones, and indeed for staff and volunteers.

[Rebecca Paul]

Does the hon. Lady have any concerns about what this position would mean for the end of life workforce? I know we are here to make law, but we cannot ignore the practical consequences for end of life care. If we do not have this carve-out, we could lose a lot of wonderful and great people who work in end of life care and who feel that they are not able to participate, if the hospice cannot specify.

[Kim Leadbeater]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to acknowledge the wonderful workforce working in end of life care, but there is a range of views within that workforce and there is the individual opt-out. No one has to be involved in this process if they do not want to be. That is clear in the Bill as it stands. I hope that, working together, we can make that even clearer if needed.

Under the Bill, doctors and health professionals already have the ability to opt out for any reason, wherever they work.

[Naz Shah]

Pharmacies have not been mentioned. Would they have the ability to opt out?

[Kim Leadbeater]

It is a good point. My understanding—the Minister might correct me—is that pharmacists currently are within the definition of health professionals, but if they are not, that is an important point, which would be covered by making the change to ensure that no one is under any duty. However, I will definitely check that.

Mr Porter also said:

“hospices evolved out of the community. They exist because communities wanted better deaths. In the end, it is the job of institutions to evolve to fit the values and laws of society as they evolve, rather than vice versa.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 202, Q264.]

The polling on assisted dying shows significant public support for a change in the law, which is one of the main reasons we are here discussing the issue today. The latest figures from the British social attitudes survey, published just this week by the National Centre for Social Research, show that support at 79%, which is unchanged or slightly up on a decade ago. Although I cannot support these amendments, this is an important debate. I think we have conducted ourselves extremely well over the past 24 hours. I think it is important that we continue the debate respectfully and sensitively.

[Danny Kruger]

I, too, am very grateful to you for rescuing us, Ms McVey; thank you. I also thank the hon. Member for Spen Valley: it is nice to be commended for our good conduct, so I am grateful for that. This has been a very interesting debate, and I thank all hon. Members for participating. I appreciate the fact that we have made some progress in understanding each other and potentially improving the Bill, although I regret the lack of support from the Government Front Bench for the amendments that I have tabled.

Let me just refresh memories on the purpose of my amendments. The Bill promoter has tabled amendments to clauses 24 and 25, which we will come to and which keep the phrase

“providing assistance to a person in accordance with this Act”,

but add to it these two other phrases:

“performing any other function under that Act”

and

“assisting a person seeking to end their own life in accordance with that Act”.

Those amendments expand the protection from criminal and civil liability. They mean that performing any other function under the Act and assisting a person seeking to end their own life, in connection with the doing of anything under the Act, are both protected from criminal and civil liability. But the hon. Lady has not tabled a similar amendment to clause 23, and there is a real risk. The British Medical Association, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society and the Royal College of Nursing, as I mentioned yesterday, have all warned that the protection of conscience clause is limited solely to the final act, rather than applying to all functions under the Act. I appreciate that the hon. Lady expresses a commitment to trying to ensure that we do cover everybody and all appropriate actions and activities that take place, but I suggest that that is what my amendment would do.

In response to the objections to the amendment, I appreciate the sudden interest in precision in drafting.

[Kim Leadbeater]

It is not sudden!

[Danny Kruger]

Well, every time that those on my side of the debate raise detailed, particular points we are told, “Oh, the spirit of the text is clear. We’ll sort that out later. It’ll come in guidance.” We are told that we should not be nitpicking, embroidering and so on. Anyway, I appreciate the attention to detail, and I want to respond to some of the points.

With respect, the Minister made a pretty tendentious suggestion that a doctor could opt in to assisted dying and take part in some of the procedures but then suddenly decide to neglect performing others, and that that would not be negligent. I cannot conceive of any court or tribunal conceding that it would not be negligent not to fulfil the obligations under the Act once the procedure has begun—once the doctor has made commitments and already undertaken activities to progress an assisted dying case.

The hon. Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire objected on the grounds that the amendment might give a gardener or cleaner the right to opt out. Proposed new subsection (1B)(b) of clause 23 actually makes it clear that “ancillary” activities are not protected by the conscience clause, so the gardener would not be off the hook—under the amendment, the gardener would still have to mow the lawn.

I recognise that the drafting might not be perfect, but I emphasise that the PBL “Guide to Making Legislation”—by the secretariat to the Parliamentary Business and Legislation Cabinet Committee—makes it clear that Government should not object to Back-Bench amendments on drafting grounds. If there are issues with particular phrasing that cause the Government or the promoter concern, that can be addressed subsequently, so I regret it if the Minister is using drafting issues to justify a refusal to support these amendments.

On new clause 22 and the issue of premises, which we have discussed very interestingly, a couple of objections have been raised. The first relates to shared ownership schemes, which we are all familiar with, particularly for elderly people. The answer is simple. The corporate owner under a shared ownership scheme is not in occupation. Being in occupation has a particular meaning in land law, and it is not the case here that a tenant genuinely in occupation of their own premises could somehow be denied their right to have an assisted death in their own home because of the freehold arrangement of the premises they occupy.

I am grateful for the indication given by Members, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire, that there may well be circumstances in which it is appropriate for particular premises to opt out of the obligation to facilitate assisted dying, so that a particular institution would have the right to deny permission for assisted death.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-seventh sitting)

Kim Leadbeater Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 19th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 504, in clause 24, page 15, line 11, leave out from second “of” to end of line 12 and insert

“—

(a) providing assistance to a person to end their own life in accordance with this Act, or performing any other function under this Act in accordance with this Act, or

(b) assisting a person seeking to end their own life in accordance with this Act, in connection with the doing of anything under this Act.”.

This amendment provides that it is not an offence to perform a function under the Bill, or to assist a person seeking to end their own life, in connection with the doing of anything under the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 505, in clause 24, page 15, leave out lines 22 and 23 and insert

“—

(a) providing assistance to a person to end their own life in accordance with the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Act 2025, or performing any other function under that Act in accordance with that Act, or

(b) assisting a person seeking to end their own life in accordance with that Act, in connection with the doing of anything under that Act.”.

This amendment ensures that it is not an offence under the Suicide Act 1961 to perform a function under the Bill, or to assist a person seeking to end their own life, in connection with the doing of anything under the Bill.

Clause stand part.

I remind Committee members that we expect four or five votes at about 2.50 pm. In that case, we will suspend for an hour, similarly to last night, and come back at 3.50 pm, but we will cross that bridge when we get to it.

[Kim Leadbeater]

These amendments relate to criminal liability under the Bill. They get to the heart of why the legislation is needed. Amendment 504 seeks to clarify the language of clause 24 and provide reassurance that it will not be considered an offence to perform a function under the provisions of the Bill or to assist a person seeking to end their own life in connection with anything done under the Bill. It will ensure that those acting within the law, and with compassion, to assist terminally ill individuals who wish to end their suffering and take control at the end of their life are protected under the law.

Amendment 505 ensures that the provisions of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Act 2025 will supersede the Suicide Act 1961, providing clarity that actions taken under the new Act will not be subject to the outdated legal framework established under the 1961 Act. That is a crucial step in modernising our laws to reflect the values of compassion, dignity and personal autonomy. These amendments bring us closer to a legal framework that is clear and safe.

Our Prime Minister, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), the former Director of Public Prosecutions, stated in relation to assisted dying, “The law must reflect the changing moral landscape of society, and in cases such as this, where the individual’s autonomy and suffering are at stake, our legal framework must offer clarity and compassion.” During his tenure as DPP, Sir Keir also emphasised the importance of not criminalising individuals who act out of compassion, particularly in difficult and morally complex situations. He said, “The law must be clear, and it must ensure that those who act with the intention to relieve suffering are not penalised, as long as their actions are in accordance with the law.” That sentiment is echoed in the amendments before us today, which ensure that those who assist individuals under the Bill are protected by law, offering clarity and reassurance to both the public and professionals who may be involved in such decisions.

Sir Max Hill, another former Director of Public Prosecutions, remarked in 2019, “The law around assisted dying is often unclear and creates a great deal of uncertainty for both individuals and healthcare professionals. What we need is a system that balances compassion with protection, ensuring that people who are at their most vulnerable are supported in a way that is both legal and ethical.” Sir Max Hill’s words emphasise the need for clear, compassionate guidance, which these amendments will provide. They will help to eliminate the legal uncertainty that can cause fear and hesitation in those who act in the best interests of individuals facing terminal illness.

The 2010 DPP policy clarified that assisting someone to end their life was not automatically criminal and that each case would be assessed on its individual facts. However, that has not changed the law and many people are still being failed by the law as it stands. These amendments create clarity and prevent ambiguity around what constitutes a criminal act versus an action legally protected by the new law.

I will finish with a very powerful testimony from Louise Shackleton from Scarborough. Louise accompanied her husband to Dignitas last December. I believe she was the first person to make that trip since Second Reading. Louise talks about the trip she made to Switzerland with her husband. She says:

“This is not an easy process as some against Assisted Dying might have you believe, might try and convince you. It is a robust and thorough almost an ordeal in itself. Then there is the cost, not just financially but mentally and physically as he had to be able to get to Zurich and someone had to assist him to do this…My husband did not deserve this to be his end nor did I deserve this to be his end, my last memory of him…I accompanied my husband to Switzerland, where we had 4 wonderful days together, my husband’s mood had lifted, he was at peace, it was as if the weight of the world had been lifted from his shoulders. He was not scared, no anxiety, his emotional suffering had ceased. You cannot imagine unless you see and feel this he was looking forward to his peaceful death, looking forward to leaving his pain, suffering…At the end, my husband was able to die on his own terms, pain-free and peaceful, held in my arms as his heart gently slowed and finally stopped, granting him the dignified and serene farewell that he had wished for. But where was I? alone in a strange country alone, scared, bereft, organising an Uber to take me away from the…Dignitas House, I was vulnerable and in utter shock, now having to leave my dead husband alone, leave his body to be cared for by people I had never met…Due to our draconian laws my husband had to be in a foreign country, had to be cremated to be brought back home. No funeral that he would have chosen, no mourners, no ceremony, cremated with no Reverend to pray for him, returned to me in a cardboard box. The pain is excruciating beyond any other loss I have experienced”.

She then says:

“I have been arrested and spent just under three hours being interviewed by two CID officers. Four days after my husband left my world there I was stuck in a Police station being cautioned, questioned, having to relive my trauma, for my crime, a crime made by love, a crime made by adoration, a crime of compassion and respect of my husband’s last wish.”

She now faces a prolonged police investigation. She tells us,

“My husband was the first British person to go to Dignitas after parliament debated on Friday 29^th Of November 2024. You have the power, the power is yours to be human, to follow Gods wish, to ‘suffer’ choices that other people may make even if its uncomfortable for you. Palliative care I hear you say, My Husband did not want palliative care…Please give others the gift of dignity and a good death in their homes…You have the power to do something amazing, give people the choice.”

I commend these amendments, which will help many people. Sadly, it is too late for Louise, but they will help many other families who will potentially go through what she has been through.

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

I rise to speak briefly on clause stand part. As I noted a few weeks back—it feels a long time ago—when we debated amendment 82, the clause leaves the law in a strange position. I hope that we will now have the opportunity to explore that and make sure that we are comfortable with the position and have identified whether any changes are needed.

Section 2(1) of the Suicide Act 1961 criminalises both assisting and encouraging suicide:

“A person (‘D’) commits an offence if—

(a) D does an act capable of encouraging or assisting the suicide or attempted suicide of another person, and

(b) D’s act was intended to encourage or assist suicide or an attempt at suicide.”

It is a single offence, but can be committed in two ways: either through assistance or through encouragement.

Clause 24(3), both as drafted and as amended by amendment 505, would make an exception from criminal liability under the Suicide Act, but in respect only of assistance, not of encouragement. It would cover:

“(a) providing assistance to a person to end their own life in accordance with the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Act 2025, or performing any other function under that Act in accordance with that Act, or

(b) assisting a person seeking to end their own life in accordance with that Act, in connection with the doing of anything under that Act.”

In other words, it is strictly limited to assisting suicide. It only covers the actions in the Bill around conducting the preliminary discussion, assessing the applicant, giving the applicant the approved substance and so on. What happens to the other half of section 2 of the Suicide Act: the offence of encouraging suicide? I will not rehash the debates that we had over amendment 82, but I must point out that as that amendment was rejected, the law does not dovetail. Encouragement would still be very much an offence under the Suicide Act, as it has not been excepted under the Bill.

Because my amendment was not agreed to, we will have the absurd situation in which somebody can commit the crime of actively encouraging someone to take their own life, yet that will not be looked for or taken into account when assessing someone’s eligibility for an assisted death. On the flipside, there is a very real risk for families and friends of loved ones who could inadvertently overstep the mark and move from support of a loved one to encouragement. It does not take much imagination to realise that that could lead to accusations and potentially even to prosecution if the law is not sorted and clarified at this stage.

We already know how difficult it has been for family members who want to accompany loved ones to Dignitas but fear that they could face prosecution; the hon. Member for Spen Valley has made that point so eloquently. No one wants that, so it is important that we ensure that the Bill does not create a similar situation in which someone could be unfairly prosecuted for encouragement, which is still very much a crime under the Suicide Act.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Paul]

I appreciate that, Mr Dowd, which is why I was elaborating—I wanted to make sure that everyone understood the nature of the question without having seen the letter. In order to summarise, following your instruction, I refer to the letter.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I have nothing further to add.

Amendment 504 agreed to.

Amendment made: 505, in clause 24, page 15, leave out lines 22 and 23 and insert

“—

(a) providing assistance to a person to end their own life in accordance with the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Act 2025, or performing any other function under that Act in accordance with that Act, or

(b) assisting a person seeking to end their own life in accordance with that Act, in connection with the doing of anything under that Act.”.—(Kim Leadbeater.)

This amendment ensures that it is not an offence under the Suicide Act 1961 to perform a function under the Bill, or to assist a person seeking to end their own life, in connection with the doing of anything under the Bill.

Clause 24, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25

Civil liability for providing assistance

[Kim Leadbeater]

I beg to move amendment 501, in clause 25, page 15, line 31, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

“(1) The doing of any of the following does not, of itself, give rise to any civil liability—

(a) providing assistance to a person to end their own life in accordance with this Act;

(b) performing any other function under this Act in accordance with this Act;

(c) assisting a person seeking to end their own life in accordance with this Act, in connection with the doing of anything under this Act.

(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply—

(a) in relation to an act done dishonestly, or in some other way done otherwise than in good faith, or

(b) to any liability in tort arising from a breach of a duty of care owed to a person.”.

This amendment ensures that the exclusion from civil liability applies in relation to persons performing functions under the Bill, and persons assisting a person seeking to end their own life, in connection with the doing of things under the Bill. It also excepts, from the exclusion from civil liability, things done dishonestly or not in good faith, and any liability arising out of negligence.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 502, in clause 25, page 15, line 34, after “life” insert

“, or to attempt to do so,”.

This amendment and amendment 503 are consequential on amendment 501.

Amendment 503, Clause 25, page 15, line 36, leave out subsection (3).

See the statement for amendment 502.

Clause stand part.

[Kim Leadbeater]

The amendments ensure that the exclusion from civil liability applies in relation to persons performing functions under the Bill and persons assisting a person seeking to end their own life in connection with the doing of things under the Bill. Importantly, they also rightly exempt from the exclusion from civil liability things done dishonestly or not in good faith, and any liability arising from negligence.

Proposed new subsection (1) in amendment 501 makes it clear that anyone providing assistance to a person to end their own life in accordance with the Bill will not face civil liability simply for doing so. That is crucial in offering clarity and confidence for healthcare professionals, family members or others who might otherwise hesitate due to fear of being sued for assisting a loved one or patient who wishes to end their life as a result of their terminal illness.

However, although we are providing protection, amendment 501 does not allow for unfettered actions without any accountability. Proposed new subsection (1A) ensures that any actions that are dishonest or done in bad faith are not protected from civil liability. Additionally, it states that breaches of a duty of care, such as negligence, are also not exempt from liability. This provision is a critical safeguard. It ensures that, although we provide legal protection for those acting with compassion and integrity, we also prevent exploitation or irresponsible actions, by making it clear that there is no immunity for actions that are dishonest or negligent. That strikes the right balance between compassionate assistance and legal accountability.

The amendment particularly reassures doctors, nurses, and healthcare workers—those who are most likely to be involved in the process. Often, they are deeply committed to palliative care and to supporting patients through their end of life journey, and the amendment ensures that they will not face legal risk if they provide assistance to eligible individuals under the Bill.

[Danny Kruger]

I rise to speak to clause 25 as a whole. First, though, I welcome the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Spen Valley, because I recognise that she is attempting to fix a problem with the Bill.

However, I am afraid that my objection remains: the fact is that no other assisted suicide law in the world—including in common law jurisdictions similar to our own, such as Australia or New Zealand—has such a clause. There can be no justification for it. If, in the course of providing assistance under this Bill, a doctor commits a civil wrong, they ought to be liable for it in the usual way.

I am glad the hon. Lady has realised that a total exclusion of civil liability is not justifiable, but her change does not go far enough. Her amendments would preserve civil liability where an act was done dishonestly—not in good faith—or for liability in tort, based on the breach of a duty of care, or in other words the tort of negligence. However, it is worth noting that that still excludes civil liability in other respects, and we should ask whether that is justifiable.

First, the clause would still exclude civil liability under a contract, so a patient who has received improper care in breach of contract would not fall within either of the exceptions of proposed new subsection (1A). I take the point that, in the case of negligent care, there would often be a concurrent liability under the tort of negligence, and that that is preserved by new subsection (1A)(b), but that is not the case for other forms of contractual arrangements.

That might be particularly relevant in the situation of subcontracting. An example would be where an outsourcing company is tasked with transporting the lethal substance. Given the risks involved, the contract specifies strict rules that must be complied with, but the company does not comply with those rules. Under clause 25, even as amended, my concern is that they could not be sued for that breach of contract. What is the justification for excluding civil liability in contracts?

Secondly, there is the tort of trespass to the person, which is commonly relevant to medical practice, as it is under such torts that cases where there was no consent or capacity are handled. Those torts can be committed recklessly, but recklessness is not the same as bad faith or dishonesty, so liability could not be established under new subsection (1A)(a). Such torts are also different from negligence—they do not involve a duty of care—so they would not be covered by new subsection (1A)(b). I appreciate that, in many cases, liability could also be established under the tort of negligence, but that would not be the case in all cases. So I ask again: what is the justification for this exclusion?

Finally, and most concerning, we were told in previous debates that if it turned out that the criteria for an assisted death were not met, one could always apply for an injunction. Leaving aside the practical and financial obstacles involved in seeking an injunction at the last minute, which we have discussed before, my concern is that a private law injunction requires that a civil wrong either has been committed or is about to be committed. However, in a case where the doctors consider, in good faith and without negligence, that the criteria have been met, but the family has new evidence to show that that is not the case, the effect of clause 25, even as amended, would be that no civil wrong has been, or would be, committed in that instance, so the test for a private law injunction would not be met.

I might be wrong, so I would be interested to hear whether the Minister or the hon. Member for Spen Valley disagree with that analysis. I would be grateful if they could point out how the private law test for an interim injunction is met in such an instance.

All this could be much simpler if clause 25 were left out of the Bill entirely. Australia and New Zealand do not have such a clause or a civil liability exemption for practitioners of assisted suicide, and I am not aware of that having caused problems for practitioners, so I would be interested to understand why we need such a measure here.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. Well done for arriving on time, by the way.

These amendments aim to ensure that, if passed, this legislation will be legally and operationally workable. I will offer a technical, factual explanation and rationale for them. Amendments 501, 502 and 503 replace clause 25(1) and instead provide that the provision of assistance in accordance with the Bill will, of itself, not give rise to civil liabilities in certain circumstances. Those circumstances are where an individual provides assistance in accordance with the Bill, where an individual performs any other function under the Bill in accordance with the Bill, and where an individual assists a person seeking to end their life under the Bill, in connection with the doing of anything under the Bill. Proposed new subsection (1A) would create an exception to the exclusion of civil liabilities, providing that civil liabilities can arise in cases when an act is performed dishonestly or otherwise than in good faith, as well as in cases of negligence. Without this amendment, there is the possibility that clause 25(1) could provide blanket immunity to a person from all civil liabilities, even when they may have been negligent in their actions in providing assistance in accordance with the provisions in the Bill.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I will speak briefly on this issue. An important point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley about the protections that clause 25 and these amendments provide for medical practitioners. I think the clause strikes the right balance, but it is important to remove the blanket immunity. My hon. Friend referred to codes of practice and codes of conduct. We have talked a lot about good medical practice from the General Medical Council, and we have a clause in the Bill on codes of practice. I feel confident in the clause, but I am still having regular meetings with officials about the legal implications of the Bill. I will continue those conversations, but I am happy that the clause as it stands serves the correct purpose.

[Kit Malthouse]

Will the hon. Lady respond to the point about injunctions? The Minister might want to respond to this as well. My understanding is that in order to obtain an injunction, someone does not have to establish that there is either a civil wrong or a criminal offence. They have to establish that there is a serious matter to be adjudicated, and that there is a strong likelihood of harm taking place. In those circumstances, a court would consider granting an interim injunction, subject then to a further hearing, ex parte or otherwise. The idea that some kind of civil tort needs to be established is not actually correct in seeking an injunction.

[Kim Leadbeater]

That would be my understanding as well, but I am not a lawyer. Fortunately, a lawyer just tried to intervene on me, so he might want to step in.

[Jake Richards]

My intervention is on something completely different. I have been reminded that in Australia, there is a specific clause that relates to the provision in this amendment almost word for word, so I think the hon. Member for East Wiltshire may have been incorrect in his comments.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I thank my hon. Friend for that. Unless the Minister has anything to add on injunctions—

[The Chair]

Order. Can the Committee address all remarks to me, please? I have said this time after time. This is not a dialogue or a chit-chat across the room.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Thank you, Chair.

[Sarah Sackman]

I will address the point about injunctions, which we have touched on at a number of junctures in our debate. In terms of applying for an interim injunction in a civil case, a very well-established test is the American Cyanamid test, which all the lawyers in the room would have learned at law school. The first of those tests is, “Is there a serious issue to be tried?” Someone does not have to establish to the civil standard—

[The Chair]

Order. Can we get the order of debate right? Members may make a speech for as long as they want, on the issues they want. They may intervene to get clarity from another Member, but that has to be short and sweet. There is nothing to stop a Member from making another speech, even if they have spoken before. I exhort Members, if they want clarity, to make a speech separately, unless it is a very short intervention. If it is going to be a long intervention, they may well want to make another de facto speech and get clarity through that. They are entitled to stand up as much as they want. I am not encouraging Members to do that, but that is the gist. If the Minister wants to stand up again and clarify the point in its own speech, that is fine.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Thank you, Chair, and apologies. I thank the Minister for the intervention and I think she did make the point that needed to be made.

[The Chair]

I hope my remarks were of some help. I might repeat them again in due course.

Amendment 501 agreed to.

Amendments made: 502, in clause 25, page 15, line 34, after “life” insert

“, or to attempt to do so,”.

This amendment and amendment 503 are consequential on amendment 501.

Amendment 503, in clause 25, page 15, line 36, leave out subsection (3).—(Kim Leadbeater.)

See the statement for amendment 502.

Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

Dishonesty, coercion or pressure

[Kim Leadbeater]

I beg to move amendment 506, in clause 26, page 16, line 7, leave out “in accordance with” and insert “under”.

This amendment provides that the offence under subsection (2) applies in relation to an approved substance provided under the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 507, in clause 26, page 16, line 9, leave out “or (2)”.

This amendment limits subsection (3) to offences under subsection (1).

Amendment 508, in clause 26, page 16, line 10, at end insert—

“(4) A person who commits an offence under subsection (2) is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.”

This amendment provides for a maximum penalty of life imprisonment for an offence under subsection (2).

Amendment 509, in clause 26, page 16, line 10, at end insert—

“(5) Proceedings for an offence under this section may be instituted only by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.”

This amendment provides that proceedings for an offence under this clause may be brought only by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Clause stand part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

These amendments to clause 26—and clause 27 to some degree, which I will come on to shortly—are intended to clarify offences under the law. The changes refine the language to ensure that offences relating to dishonesty, coercion and pressure are more clearly defined. The amendments serve to clarify the details of four categories of offences, and I will provide a summary of the four categories.

The first category is when someone

“by dishonesty, coercion or pressure, induces another person to self-administer an approved substance”.

This offence, in clause 26(2), is the most serious offence. It is coercing or pressuring someone to take their own life; it includes coercive control and pressure, and it attracts as the maximum a life sentence—the most severe punishment that the law can impose.

The second category of offences includes

“by dishonesty, coercion or pressure,”

inducing

“another person to make a first or second declaration, or not to cancel such a declaration.”

This is in clause 26(1). It is where the criminal conduct has coerced or pressured someone to execute or not cancel the declarations—a step in the process, but not actually ending their own life. It is the second most serious offence, and attracts a maximum of 14 years in prison.

The third category of offences involves making or using a false instrument—first declaration, second declaration, medical report or within-six-months-or-less diagnosis—or failing to notify the cancellation of a relevant declaration, with the intention of facilitating the provision of assistance under the Act. That actually comes under new clause 24, which will be discussed in relation to clause 27, but I think it is important to look at the offences in the round. This is the third type of offence. It is a new offence, and it covers cases where a person helps another person to obtain assistance under the Act by falsifying documents to get that assistance or to prevent it from being removed. This is still very serious, and attracts a maximum sentence of 14 years. It will most often be applied where the person seeking the assistance wishes to get round the safeguards. The safeguards must be rigorously enforced, hence the same maximum as for the second category of offence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Paul]

I will be fairly brief. I welcome amendment 508, which would ensure that conviction for the offence leads to a necessarily serious result. However, it is not just the strength of the sentence that we need to think about; there is also a question about how difficult it can be to detect and demonstrate coercion in the first place.

Domestic abuse prosecutions have followed an overall downward trend over the past decade, according to Women’s Aid. A report from the Domestic Abuse Commissioner in January found the criminal justice system unfit to hold abusers to account and safeguard domestic abuse victims. Domestic abuse victims are being failed by the criminal justice system at every stage, from police to probation. Victims seeking safety in justice routinely face a lack of specialist service referrals, poor enforcement of protective orders, court delays and early release of abusers. The commissioner also found that just 5% of police-recorded domestic abuse offences reached conviction and that less than a fifth of victims have the confidence to report to the police in the first place. Within the police workforce itself, only 4% of alleged domestic abuse perpetrators are dismissed.

Women’s Aid says that trust in the criminal justice system is at an all-time low, with domestic abuse survivors not feeling that they will be believed and supported when reporting abuse. That is even more challenging for black and minoritised survivors, who face additional barriers and poor responses when they seek help.

[Kim Leadbeater]

The hon. Lady is making a point that we have already covered several times in the debate. It is an important point, but I hope that she is reassured by the offences to be included in the Bill, which create sentences that do not currently exist.

[Rebecca Paul]

I am absolutely reassured by the hon. Lady’s amendment, and I welcome it, but it is worth drawing attention to the fact that the sentence is important but identifying coercion and pressure can be difficult too.

In written evidence, a social worker called Rose has cast doubt on the workability of the Bill. She was writing when the High Court safeguard was still part of the Bill, so we need to bear that in mind, but what she said applies to the panel too. She wrote that

“based on lived experience…there is no authentic provision mechanism or route that cheaply and swiftly would allow an approved palliative care professional…or social worker to act to protect a vulnerable person under the grounds of coercion….Place yourself in a position of being sick or older, coerced by family for financial gain or by a practitioner wanting to save public costs to pursue assisted suicide, the social worker senses it by body language, a squeezing of their wrist, a sharp silencing look. Can you see a judge saying: ‘the social worker sensed a tension in the air and a look’.

Do you think that would serve to reach the threshold to override a request for assisted suicide in a court of law?

In practice, what would happen would be, the social worker will record her concerns on the system, share them with her manager who will go to her manager who will say we do not have funds to consult legal and your evidence provided does not reach threshold anyway.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

I will be grateful if the Minister or the hon. Member for Spen Valley can explain the situations in which behaviour criminalised by clause 26(2) would not also amount to an offence under section 2 of the Suicide Act, as amended, or indeed to murder. What behaviour would be criminalised here that is not already criminal? Can the hon. Lady think of any instance in which there would be no crime under section 2 of the Suicide Act, but there would be an offence under clause 26(2)? If there is no such instance—I cannot think of one—it strikes me that, at least in respect of coercion and pressure, the offence being created here is redundant and duplicative.

Ministers have rightly stressed the importance of their duty to the statute book. My understanding is that having redundant or duplicative legislation, or indeed duplicative offences, would be inconsistent with our duty to the statute book. One might ask, “What does it matter? Wouldn’t it be helpful to have additional belt-and-braces safeguards in the Bill?” I agree in principle, but I note that when other Members have deployed that argument in relation to adding terms such as “undue influence”, the neutral Ministers have rebuked them by appealing to the duty that we are supposed to have to the statute book. I think the point cuts both ways. Why are we embroidering the statute book with duplicative offences?

[Kim Leadbeater]

I would have thought, given the hon. Gentleman’s views on the Bill, that he would welcome having an actual offence for the purposes of the Bill. Surely that is something that we should all support.

[Danny Kruger]

I support the principle of insisting that inducing people by dishonesty, coercion or pressure to kill themselves should be illegal, but my understanding is that it already is. If it is not illegal, or if there are circumstances in which we need this additional offence that are not already captured by the Suicide Act or the law on murder, I would like to understand what they are. As I say, while it might be helpful to duplicate the offence, I understand that the very sensible convention in our law is that it is not helpful to have two offences relating to the same act because of the opportunity for offenders to play off one offence against the other.

Having duplicative criminal offences can make prosecuting cases harder because the defendant can raise abuse-of-process arguments about whether they have been charged with the most appropriate offence. I understand that the Attorney General’s Office and the Ministry of Justice are therefore usually very keen to avoid duplicative offences.

Let me give an example of the difference in the treatment of the offence. It is proposed that this offence would be subject to a life sentence, which requires the consent of the DPP. But at least in the one case where it overlaps with murder, this would provide a more favourable treatment for the accused than the other obvious charge. Can that be justified?

Duplicating criminal liability by introducing new offences has far-reaching implications that can disturb the coherence and certainty of criminal law. If one introduces a law that gives prosecutors two criminal offences to choose from to cover one act, some prosecutors will choose one and some will choose the other. This is generally undesirable; indeed, it is unprecedented in the case of homicide, where there is every reason to suspect that it could cause chaos for grieving families in search of justice. Such chaos is all too predictable, for a number of reasons.

Let me give an example. A defendant proven to have procured a suicide by deception will be well advised to plead guilty to the offence contrary to section 26(2) and then contest any attempt to introduce murder proceedings. This matters profoundly. A decision to prosecute is an administrative decision and is subject to judicial review. This is not an academic point; it could cause real distress for bereaved families in deep turmoil seeking justice.

Let us imagine that a person, A, is a new coercive and controlling partner of person B and procures by deception their suicide in order to profit from a will. The family of person B grow suspicious and provide the police with a convincing case for a murder prosecution. The CPS agrees and charges A with murder. A accepts that he procured the suicide by deception. On that basis, he appeals, seeking a remedy in judicial review, saying that the CPS should have charged him with a clause 26(2) offence, not murder. The JR is backed by wealthy pressure groups and is beset with administrative adjournments and so on. From the filing of the claim form to the final judgment of the administrative court within the High Court, the case takes 24 gruelling, painful, awful months for the bereaved family.

Throughout this time, the lawyers for A, the defendant, tell him to stay the course and continue to offer the plea to section 26(2), because the family will be exhausted by the reality of litigation. The family have no legal aid, no support, no charity backing and no one interested in their case. The war of attrition in litigation finally defeats them. They advise the CPS that they will accept a plea under the section 26(2) offence, and not the murder that actually occurred. That is the reality of duplicating criminal liability. In that example, A has got away with murder by judicial review.

We must be clear about what we are being asked to do. It is not simple. We are being asked to innovate in the law of murder. We are being asked to do so without the assistance of the Law Commission, without the careful eye of legal or judicial bodies alive to the difficulties of duplicating liability and without the input of any bodies that represent the victims of crime on how this might affect them. There are no Government consultations with such bodies before us. There is no expert assistance from judicial or legal figures on how the good intentions around clause 26(2) might unintentionally lead to serious and undesirable consequences such as those that I have described.